Hero Image

Selecting reviewers

  1. When you’re ready to select and assign peer reviewers to the manuscript, from your “Associate/Guest Editor tasks” page, click on the submission id#, and in the Submission Summary box at the top, click “Select/assign reviewers.”

  2. We have built our reviewer list up over time. Anytime you add a reviewer to this list, his/her name is saved in the system for you or others AEs to use in the future. Authors are also automatically added to the reviewer list. Rather than scrolling down the long list of reviewers, use the "Search/filter reviewer list" box. Start typing your potential reviewer's name on the Reviewer name field; if a reviewer is in the system already, his/her name will populate. Click on their name, and it will appear in the "Potential reviewers for this submission" box above.

  3. If the reviewer is NOT already in the system, click “add new reviewer.” This brings you back to the user preferences page, this time for your new reviewer. You only need to need to provide the system the basic information about the reviewer in the red fields: user name (which you create), first and last name, and email. Their user name is just a placeholder; they’ll customize it when they register in the system. 

  4. When you have all your reviewers listed in the "Potential reviewers for this submission box", click the "Make assignments" button. This is a little misleading; it does NOT immediately send them a review request. Instead, you have a choice to assign all reviewers at once by clicking the  "Assign all" button at the bottom OR an opportunity to customize the standard review request letter to individual reviewers by clicking the "Assign this reviewer" link in the far right column. The standard review request letter is below, but you can add text alerting them to a specific situation with the manuscript if you wish. 

    Dear {user_FullName},

    University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR -- ucanr.edu) is requesting your service as a peer reviewer for the manuscript "{sub_Title}" ({sub_SubmissionID}). Your expertise in this subject area would be of great value to us in assessing the technical accuracy of this submission and its potential relevance as a UC ANR Publication. More information about UC ANR Publications is provided below.

    To accept this peer review request, please click on the following link: {accept_link} . The review would be due {assign_DateDue}. If you need additional time to complete the review, please contact me.

    To decline this peer review request, please click on this link: {decline_link}. Please contact me if you have a reviewer to suggest in lieu of yourself.

    To download a copy of the manuscript, please click on the following link (or copy and paste it in your browser): {download_link}.

    When reviewing the manuscript, please use Track Changes to make any suggested text edits. You may also add comments to the manuscript. In addition to providing edits and comments in the manuscript file, please complete the short list of assessment questions at this link: {review_link} . As you review the manuscript, please keep in mind that UC ANR publications are written for lay and/or professional readers and are intended to reach a broad audience.

    While all attempts to keep reviewer identities confidential are made, portions of your comments may be shared with the author/s. Therefore, please record your comments and suggestions for revision and improvement without revealing your identity.

    If you choose to serve in this role, we will provide you with a copy of the finished work when/if it is published.

    Please click the following link (or copy and paste it in your browser) to access your reviewer account: {login_link}


    If accepted, this manuscript will be published by UC Agriculture and Natural Resources as a resource for practitioners and the general public. UC ANR publications of this type are extension tools -- they relate research-based information to techniques or concepts for practical application in the field. The manuscript is not expected to report new research findings.

    The manuscript should be an original expression of content; the information may be commonly known or widely accepted and published or disseminated in other sources, but the expression of that information in the ANR publication should be the author's own, not merely reproductions or collations from other sources. Publications should also contain sufficient text content to convey extension-related information, techniques or concepts to the intended audience. The manuscript should represent durable content that will remain useful to clientele for some years.

    Other publications of this type may be found in the UC ANR Publications catalog, https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/ and, for pest management publications, on the UC Integrated Pest Management website, http://ipm.ucanr.edu/IPMPROJECT/pubsmenu.html Please contact Jim Downing, Director of Publishing, jdowning@ucanr.edu, with any questions regarding UC ANR Publications.

    Thank you in advance for responding to this request.

    Best regards,

  5. Once you have selected the reviewers, click “Make assignments.” This list shows the potential reviewers selected for this submission.

  6. You now have the opportunity to set a different deadline for the review—our default deadline is 30 days from assignment—and customize the standard reviewer letter that will go to all of your reviewers, if you wish.

  7. You can also write a customized message to an individual reviewer. Click the “Assign this reviewer” link in the far right column of that reviewer’s row. The standard reviewer assignment email template (shown above) appears, which you can edit to suit your purposes. It is here that you can direct your reviewer to a problem in the manuscript that you’d like him/her to look at. You can also adjust the standard 30-day deadline here. You will get an opportunity to preview this customized letter before you send it.

  8. Or, to assign all of these reviewers at once using the review request template above, click the “Assign all” button at the bottom of the list.

  9. Over time, data about the reviewers—how many manuscripts they’ve completed, how many they’ve declined, how fast they’ve done their review—will be collected and available to see in the reviewer list. How useful or good a review they’ve done is too subjective for the system to compile, unfortunately.

Our peer review questions

Note: if a reviewer does not answer one of the questions, that question does not appear on the returned review.

  1. Please summarize what you believe are the major problems—if any—in this manuscript. You may also attach a separate sheet instead of using this form. [Text entry box]

  2. Does the title accurately represents the manuscript’s contents? [Multiple choice] Yes/No

  3. Is the manuscript technically sound? [Multiple choice] Yes/No

  4. Expand on Question #3. Is the manuscript accurate and does it reflect good science? [Text entry box]

  5. Is there a need for the information in this manuscript? [Multiple choice]
    • Very timely, very significant
    • Timely, significant
    • Of general interest, average need
    • Of some interest, below average need
    • Little interest, minimal need

  6. Is the manuscript up to date? [Text entry box]

  7. Is the writing style and organization clear and unambiguous? Note that professional editors will be copyediting manuscripts that pass ANR peer review. [Text entry box]

  8. Is the manuscript's content appropriate for its audience? [Multiple choice]
    • Yes
    • No
    • Do not know

  9. Are you aware of other publications that adequately cover this material? [Multiple choice]
    • No other publications cover this material
    • Not aware of any
    • Yes

  10. If yes to Question #9, what publication(s)? [Text entry box]

  11. Is there a need for this publication in a language besides English? If so, what language? [Text entry box]

  12. Recommendation for publication: [Multiple choice]
    • Accepted, contingent upon approved revision
    • Declined, but recommend to rework and resubmit
    • Declined outright