Reviewers have a crucial responsibility in the decision process leading from submission to publication. Here are some things that you as reviewers can do to help us as editors to improve and accelerate that process.

The following reviewer guidelines align with those of Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, except that we (i) use a slightly different suggested review template, (ii) guideline 3 is complemented by our policy on anonymous and eponymous reviewing shaped by the different editorial process we use at Glossa Contact, and (iii) our guideline 4 requires the reviewers to disclose it when they know the author(s). 

1. Please answer the invitation to review as promptly as possible, especially if you cannot do the review. This will allow the editor to invite a new reviewer and considerably shorten the submission-to-decision (StD) time. If you do not answer quickly, the editors will wait for your answer for 10-15 days before inviting a new reviewer. When a succession of invited reviewers fail to answer timely, StD time is significantly increased.

2. If you cannot do the review, it would be extremely helpful for us if you could suggest alternative reviewers. The editors invited you because they think you are best qualified to review that paper, and will appreciate your suggestions for alternative reviewers. 

3. Like most journals, Glossa Contact uses double-blind peer review as its default policy. In principle, the reviewers do not know the author, and the paper is anonymously presented to the reviewers. Admittedly, double-blind peer review is not easily achieved in practice. In small or intersecting subfields, most scholars know each other and can easily identify who wrote the paper. We are aware of the debate around Open Peer Review. However, this is still very controversial. Nevertheless, we allow reviewers to disclose their identity to the authors. We ask reviewers who wish to sign their reviews to carefully take into account the power differential that may exist between themselves and the authors of the paper. See also here. 

4. If you know the author, we ask you to disclose this to the Handling Editorial Team when agreeing to review. The very fact of knowing the author does not necessarily exclude you from being a reviewer. However, we would expect you to self-exclude in the case of: sharing same affiliation as the author; having been supervisor or supervisee of the author; has somehow been involved in the preparation of the paper; have previous publications with the author; are spouse or relatives with the author; have a rivalry or any other relationship which will jeopardise an objective review. When in doubt, ask the editor for advice.

5. If you have reviewed the paper before for a different journal, that does not disqualify you from reviewing it again. In particular, if you notice that the paper has not changed from the last time you reviewed it, please inform the editor of this. 

6. Please answer review reminders. There may be a host of reasons why you cannot make the original deadline. Please inform the editors and keep in touch. Always handle the review assigned to you in the same way you would like reviews of your own article to be treated.

7. Please use our suggested review template. It is not compulsory, but it will help you organize your thoughts and is of great value to authors and editors.

8. Co-reviewing. We encourage senior reviewers to consider involving PhD students in their reviewing tasks if the paper is something the students have expertise on. We do not, however, endorse a situation in which the PhD student does the bulk of the work: co-reviewing means a joint review by a senior and a junior researcher. Co-reviewing trains students in a valuable skill, as it helps them to formulate constructive criticism and to better understand the reviewing process. Reviewers willing to do so should inform the Handling Editorial Team and provide the name of the PhD student to be involved for the Handling Editorial Team to approve.