EON Standard Peer Review Process

In most cases, articles to be published in EON are reviewed for acceptability and tone by the Editors-in-Chief and Section Editors. If the EON Editors feel they have a conflict of interest, a perceived conflict of interest, or require additional outside perspectives, they may send an article out for external peer review.

Peer reviewers are selected from the ISMTE Board of Directors, ISMTE members in good standing, and/or industry experts as deemed appropriate. EON Editors strive to include diverse perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds.

General Guidelines

Reviews should be concise, honest, and polite. Feedback may be critical but should always remain constructive in nature. Any review comments that the EON Editors deem inappropriate or irrelevant will be removed.

Reviewers must be timely in returning feedback or communicate a need for an extension as early as possible to avoid a disruption of the peer review process. Likewise, individuals who are unable to accept an invitation to review should decline as soon as possible. Recommendations of alternate reviewers are welcome should an individual be unable to review.

Use the following resources to learn more about what makes a good review and to refresh your skills as a reviewer:

Confidentiality

Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript they are reviewing (and all information contained therein) remains confidential.

When external peer review is utilized, EON employs a double-anonymized review process. Reviewers’ identities will not be disclosed to authors at any point in the review process, and the author(s)’ personal information will likewise not be disclosed to reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

If a reviewer believes that they have a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest, this must be disclosed prior to review. If the EON Editors believe the conflict of interest precludes the reviewer from continuing the review, another reviewer will be selected. If the reviewer feels for any reason that they are unable to provide a fair and objective review, they must recuse themselves. If you are unsure whether recusal is necessary, please query the Editor-in-Chief.

Artificial Intelligence/Large Language Model (AI/LLM) Use Policy

Use of AI by reviewers is prohibited in the following circumstances:

Reviewers may not copy a manuscript, in whole or part, into an AI tool due to confidentiality concerns
Reviewers may not use AI to write the review itself; assist in evaluation of the paper’s merits; assist in the decision-making process; or to synthesize their feedback due to the risk of introducing incomplete, incorrect, and/or biased information

Other uses of AI/LLMs by reviewers not listed here are permitted but must be disclosed in the review. Such uses include but are not limited to conducting searches of the literature or collecting general background information. Additionally, reviewers who use AI in permissible circumstances are reminded to check information generated by AI for accuracy. For questions regarding AI usage by reviewers, query the Editor-in-Chief (eon@ismte.org).