[Skip to Content]

For Authors  |  For Associate Editors  |  For Handling Editors  |  Editorial Resources  |  Editorial Board and Staff  |  Contact Us 

Quick Guide for TRR Journal Publication Reviewers

Basic Expectations:

  • Update your expertise in Editorial Manager (see below)

  • Review papers within your area of expertise and return your comments within 3 weeks.

  • Respect the confidentiality of the process.

  • Be objective, professional, and constructive in your review.

  • Declare any conflicts of interest (professional, personal or financial) and recuse yourself from the review.

  • The TRR follows the COPE guidelines on reviewer ethics

Recommended Actions:

  • Read the Abstract and accept or reject the invitation to review within 10 days.

  • Read the paper and form an initial impression before you begin writing.

  • If the paper is unintelligible, please return it to the Editor with a recommendation to desk reject.

  • If a good paper is compromised by poor writing, tactfully note this in your comments and suggest a grammar review.

  • Identify specific strengths and weaknesses of the paper in your summary.

  • Give detailed and constructive comments to the author(s) to help them revise the paper to its highest potential.

  • If appropriate, suggest additional relevantliterature for the author to consider.

  • Provide a frank assessment of the paper’s strengths and weakness in the Confidential Comments to Editor

Items to address in your comments:

  • Does the title and abstract properly reflect the subject of the paper?

  • Are the narrative and the key findings of the paper clearly described?

  • Is the methodology appropriate to the topic of research?

  • Does the work make a meaningful and lasting contribution to the current literature and/or practice, or does it simply confirm published findings?

  • How does it contribute to this field?

  • Are there major conceptual or factual errors?

  • Does each table and figure contribute to the narrative?

  • Is the paper an appropriate length?

Before you are assigned papers, you will need to indicate your expertise at https://www.editorialmanager.com/trr

Simply click on Update My Information in the blue banner and scroll down to Select Personal Classifications:

Please select only those areas where you feel qualified to review.

Usage of Large Language Models/Generative AI


If you are considering using a large language model [(LLM), e.g. ChatGPT] or Generative AI to help prepare your review for the TRR or TRBAM, you must comply with the following statement based on general guidance from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics):



• Reviewers who use AI as a tool to assist in their evaluation of a submission must be transparent in disclosing how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their review comments, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics. In order to receive credit for peer review, the assessment must be your own and not the output of Artificial Intelligence/Learned Language Model/AI Chat Bot, or other modules.



Specifically, Reviewers are required to:



1. Clearly indicate the use of language models in the reviewer questionnaire, including which model was used and for what purpose. 



2. Verify the accuracy, validity, and appropriateness of any AI content or citations generated by language models and correct any errors or inconsistencies.



3. Provide a list of sources used to generate review comments, including those generated by language models.



4. Be conscious of the potential for plagiarism in your review where the LLM may have reproduced substantial text from other sources. 



5. Acknowledge the limitations of language models in your review comments, including the potential for bias, errors, and gaps in knowledge.


Self-Citations in Reviewer Comments

Per the Committee on Publication Ethics, "Citations to a paper must advance the argument within the article. There can be circumstances where there are genuine suggestions for additional citations which may improve the quality of the paper, but these should not be a condition of acceptance."


Please use care when suggesting the addition of references to your own work in your review comments. Patterns of egregious conduct to promote a reviewer's own work is considered unethical reviewer behavior.

For more information, please visit our full reviewer guidelines PDF.