Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Your review must reflect an unbiased evaluation of the work itself. If you have any reason to doubt your ability to assess a submission fairly, decline the invitation—or alert the editor the moment a potential conflict becomes apparent. This includes situations where impartiality could reasonably be questioned by others, such as financial or professional ties connected to the authors or the paper’s findings, or prior personal disputes with the authors. If any portion of the submission falls outside your expertise, say so plainly in your review so the editor can weigh your comments accordingly.

Write reviews that are courteous, substantive, and respectful of the authors’ intellectual autonomy. Keep your critique focused on the work—never the person. STEM Review editors reserve the right to remove remarks that undermine productive evaluation of a manuscript. Reviewers benefit from prompt turnaround on their own submissions; extend the same courtesy by delivering your review within the agreed window. If circumstances will delay you, notify the editor when you accept the assignment or as soon as the delay becomes apparent.

Reviews at STEM Review are conducted anonymously, and our editors will not disclose reviewer identities. In select cases, the STEM Review editorial team may offer reviewers the opportunity to reveal their own identity—this option is granted solely at the discretion of the editor responsible for the submission. Reviews may be shared with the authors, with fellow reviewers, and with members of our editorial board.

Every submitted manuscript is privileged material and must be handled as strictly confidential. Destroy or permanently delete all copies once your review is complete. Do not circulate the manuscript or seek outside input from colleagues unless the editor has expressly approved it. Prior to publication, reviewers may not use the manuscript’s data, methods, or interpretations for personal or professional advantage without the authors’ explicit consent (an exception applies when preparing an invited editorial or commentary tied to the article).

No portion of a manuscript may be entered into a large language model or any other AI system. Reviewers may use AI tools to polish their own written comments, provided the tool does not retain or train on the input, and provided the use is openly disclosed in the review. Full responsibility for any AI-assisted content rests with the reviewer.

Reviewers are expected to be familiar with STEM Review’s policies on conflicts of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.