The following procedures and policies provide essential information for researchers who agree to assist us by assessing papers submitted to Elementa. We also ask reviewers to review our Editorial Policies.
Elementa publishes articles that are technically sound, that are worthy of inclusion in the scholarly record, and that further research and discourse in the relevant field of study. Our Editors have adopted an inclusive posture within their respective disciplines, with the goal to promote interdisciplinary collaboration and exchange. We do not attempt to predict a submission’s value to the field over time, as that is best left to the community of researchers and readers. Article-level metrics of citation, usage, and qualified comment are now available to track impact over time.
We are committed to making the review process as collegial and constructive as possible. We ask our reviewers to provide frank and direct assessments, but to avoid comments that are sharp or offensive.
We are committed to providing authors with a timely review and publication process, which requires a rapid response from editors and reviewers alike. If you agree to review an article, we ask that you return your review within a short timeframe, typically within two (2) weeks of receiving a manuscript, in order to maintain a rapid review schedule.
Following the exemplary practice of PLOS One, you will be asked to complete a peer-review form, to focus and streamline the review process. The form consists of three sections:
1. Statement of Competing Interests (required)
You must declare any potential or perceived competing interests that may influence your review.
2. Comments to the Author(s) (required)
This section includes questions about whether the submission meets Elementa’s publication criteria. Answers to these questions are required. You also have the option to raise any additional issues in a free-text response at the end of the form. The answers to all questions in this section will be included in the decision letter to the author. The specific questions in this section focus on the following:
For each of these questions, you must choose between a selection of answer choices (e.g., Yes, No, I don’t know, N/A). If you have further feedback about a specific item, you may include it in the optional free-text box following the question.
3. Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional)
In this section, you may share any comments with the Associate Editor that you do not wish to share with the author. This section is optional, and we strongly encourage reviewers to include all relevant information regarding their evaluation of the scientific content of the manuscript in the “Comments to the Author” section. However, we understand that some feedback that may be helpful to the Associate Editor may not be appropriate to share with the authors.
This section also includes two optional questions about whether the submission should be highlighted in Elementa on its organizational website. These answers will not play any role in the editorial decision-making process and will not be shared with the authors.
Our review process is confidential and should be treated as such by all individuals involved in the submission and review process: authors, editors, editorial assistants, external reviewers, and staff.
We will not release your identity to authors unless you ask to be identified. The names of the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor are published with accepted papers, but you will remain anonymous.
Note: If you choose to attach a file in support of your review, and are not asking to be identified, please take care to use a generic file name that does not reveal your identity.
To keep costs as low as possible, Elementa articles are not subject to detailed copyediting. We therefore rely on reviewers to pay particular attention to the clarity of English language usage and consistency of reference style, and to point out areas in the text that need attention when completing the review form.