The review process at Axios Review is very similar to peer review at most quality journals.

For example, the main body of the review is normally structured as follows:

• a few sentences on the aims and results of the paper
• an overview of the paper’s strengths and weaknesses
• an in-depth discussion of whatever major problems you have identified
• any concerns you have about ethics or the availability of data and materials
• a list of any other minor issues

We encourage reviewers not to talk about the target journals in the main body of your review.

The second section of the review is a few sentences on how well the paper fits in each of the four target journals. Each statement should be independent of the others (i.e. the comments for journal A do not reference journal C).

For example:

Journal A

While the results of this paper are solid and everything is well presented, I don’t think this paper is sufficiently novel or important for journal A.

Journal B

Journal B has published a few previous studies of this phenomenon (Jones et al, Zhang et al), and I think their readers would be interested in this paper. The authors would need to make it clear how their paper adds to the earlier research.

Journal C

I think this paper would be a good contribution to Journal C, and would certainly be of interest to their readership.

Journal D

This paper could certainly be published in Journal D.

Axios Review is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics and we adhere to their code of conduct and guidelines for best practice in peer review. We’re also a registered BC non-profit, cert. no. S0065926.