Peer Review Process

Sustainable Science Letters employs a single-blind peer review process where reviewer identities are kept anonymous, but authors' identities are known to reviewers. This approach helps ensure objective evaluation while acknowledging the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability research.

Manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject with Opportunity for Resubmission, or Reject. For revised manuscripts, the original reviewers are typically invited to re-evaluate the revised version.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of research published in Sustainable Science Letters. Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide Timely Reviews: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks)
• Maintain Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript information as confidential and not share or discuss with others
• Declare Conflicts of Interest: Alert editors if you have any conflicts that might affect your ability to provide an objective review
• Provide Constructive Feedback: Offer specific, constructive comments that will help authors improve their work
• Be Respectful: Phrase criticisms in a way that acknowledges the effort of the authors and avoids dismissive or hostile language
• Alert Editors to Concerns: Notify editors if you suspect ethical issues such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript for Sustainable Science Letters, please assess the following aspects:

Relevance and Significance

• • Does the manuscript address an important topic in sustainability science?
  • Does it make an original contribution to knowledge?
  • Are the implications for sustainability clearly articulated?

Methodological Rigor

• • Are the methods appropriate for the research question?
  • Is the methodology clearly described and replicable?
  • Are limitations acknowledged and addressed?

Results and Analysis

• • Are results presented clearly and accurately?
  • Is the analysis appropriate and thorough?
  • Do the conclusions follow logically from the results?

Clarity and Organization

• • Is the manuscript well-structured and easy to follow?
  • Is the writing clear, concise, and free of errors?
  • Are figures and tables informative and well-presented?

Literature and Context

• • Does the manuscript properly contextualize the work within existing literature?
  • Are relevant works cited appropriately?
  • Does the discussion engage meaningfully with the broader field?

Ethical Considerations

• • Are any ethical issues regarding the research addressed?
  • Is there evidence of appropriate ethical approvals where relevant?
  • Are data sources properly acknowledged and credited?

Review Format and Submission

When submitting your review, please provide:

1. Recommendation: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject (with reasoning)
2. Comments to Editors: Brief summary of your assessment and any confidential comments
3. Comments to Authors: Detailed feedback organized by major sections of the manuscript

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Sustainable Science Letters follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for peer review. Reviewers should:

• Decline to review if they feel unqualified, have conflicts of interest, or cannot meet the deadline
• Maintain confidentiality about the manuscript and not use information from it prior to publication
• Provide objective assessment based on scientific merit rather than personal opinions or biases
• Not contact authors directly about the manuscript without editor permission
• Report suspected research misconduct to editors rather than addressing it directly in the review