Skip to main content

Guidelines for Reviewers

PLOS Climate relies on members of the scientific research community to assess the validity of articles under consideration through peer review.

Invitation to Review

PLOS Climate editors select potential reviewers based on their expertise in research areas relevant to the manuscript under consideration. Reviewer invitations are sent by email from the journal's Editorial Manager submission system. Use the links in the invitation email to accept or decline, or check the “New Reviewer Invitations” folder on your Reviewer Main Menu screen in Editorial Manager. Accept an invitation only if you have the knowledge, time and objectivity necessary to provide an unbiased assessment of the research. In agreeing to complete a review, you also give permission to publish your review under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY license.

Our Peer Review Process

PLOS Climate practices single-anonymized peer review by default, but offers opportunities for authors and reviewers to participate in signed and published peer review.

Our peer review model

Single-anonymized peer review

During the peer review process you will know the authors’ names, but your name will not be shared. Your review will appear in the editorial decision letter where it can be read by the authors and other reviewers.

Signed peer review

You can choose to sign your name to your review when you submit it. Remember, if you sign your name the authors and other reviewers of the manuscript will see it. If the authors choose to publish their peer review history your name will accompany your comments alongside the published article.


If the authors subsequently choose to transfer their manuscript to another PLOS journal your review will accompany it. You may hear from editors at another PLOS journal for re-review. Reviewers for any PLOS journal should be willing to have their reviews considered by the editors of another PLOS journal.

Published peer review history

If the authors decide to publish their peer review history, the editorial decision letter, including your review, will appear alongside the published article. Your name will not appear unless you choose to sign your review.

Best practices for reviewers

Declaring competing interests

A competing interest is anything that interferes with or could be perceived as potentially interfering with, a thorough and objective assessment of a manuscript. Common examples of competing interests may include:

  • A recent or current collaboration with any of the authors
  • Direct competition or a history of scientific conflict with any of the authors
  • An opportunity to profit financially from the work

Do not accept a review assignment if you have a competing interest, or don’t feel able to give an objective assessment. If you’re unsure whether your relationship qualifies as a competing interest, contact for advice. If we ask you to complete the review anyway, be sure to declare the competing interest when you submit your review.

Crediting collaborators

Co-reviewing is a great way to gain peer review experience under the mentorship of an experienced reviewer and we encourage this collaboration. If you had help completing the review you must share your collaborator’s name with the journal when you submit the review, either by entering it in question 2 under the 'Confidential comments to Editor' section, or via email. Be careful not to include your collaborator’s name in the text of the review itself. Competing interests and confidentiality policies apply to all reviewers.


Keep manuscripts and correspondence confidential and do not share information about submissions with any one else unless previously agreed with the editor. We expect that reviewers will not make use of any material or take advantage of any information they gain through the peer review process.

Read the PLOS Confidentiality Policy.

Reviewing a manuscript you’ve previously reviewed

If you reviewed the article at another journal, consider the manuscript as a new submission unless instructed otherwise. Keep in mind that it may have been revised since the last time you evaluated it, and PLOS Climate's criteria for publication may differ from those of the other journal. When you submit your review, let the editor know that you reviewed a previous version of the manuscript at another journal.

Time to review

Aim to complete your review within 10 days. If you need more time to perform the review, please email us as soon as possible.

Submit Your Review Now

Learn About Peer Review

How to Submit a Peer Review in Editorial Manager

PLOS Climate uses a structured reviewer form to help reviewers focus on our publication criteria and improve the efficiency of peer review. Preview the form. The form contains two sections:

Comments to the author

Answers to the questions in this section are required and will be included in the decision letter to the author. For questions 1-4 select a response from the drop down (e.g., “Yes,” “No,” “I don't know,” “N/A”) and provide any details you wish. Enter the main text of your peer review in question 5, “Review Comments to the Author.”

Comments to the editor

Use this section to declare any potential or perceived competing interests. You’ll also have the option to list anyone who collaborated with you on the peer review, and indicate whether you think the submission should be highlighted on the PLOS Climate webpage if it goes on to be published. This will not play any role in the editorial decision-making process or be shared with the authors.

PLOS Climate does not allow confidential comments other than the declaration of competing interests. If you have confidential concerns relating to publication or research ethics, please contact us at

Reviews must be entered in the submission system. Email the journal office if you are having trouble accessing the manuscript or entering your comments.

What to Assess

To be eligible for publication manuscripts must meet our criteria for publication and comply with our editorial and publishing policies. The following guidance relates to articles reporting the results of original research.

Criteria for publication

Unlike many journals which attempt to use the peer review process to determine whether or not an article reaches the level of 'importance' required by a given journal, PLOS Climate uses peer review to determine whether a paper is technically rigorous and meets the scientific and ethical standard for inclusion in the published scientific record.

Please carefully review our seven editorial criteria for publication as the criteria employed by PLOS Climate are quite different to other journals you may have reviewed for.

To be accepted for publication in PLOS Climate, research articles must satisfy the following criteria:

  1. The study presents the results of primary scientific research.
  2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.
  3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
  4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
  5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.
  6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
  7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

Writing the review

The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert opinion regarding the validity and quality of the manuscript under consideration. The review should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they will be acceptable for publication in PLOS Climate. As you write, consider the following points:

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they for the discipline?
  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature? Have the authors treated the literature fairly?
  • Do the data and analyses fully support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
  • PLOS Climate encourages authors to publish detailed protocols and algorithms as supporting information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such treatment?
  • If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?
  • Are original data deposited in appropriate repositories and accession/version numbers provided for genes, proteins, mutants, diseases, etc.?
  • Does the study conform to any relevant guidelines such as CONSORT, MIAME, QUORUM, STROBE, and the Fort Lauderdale agreement?
  • Are details of the methodology sufficient to allow the experiments to be reproduced?
  • Is any software created by the authors freely available?
  • Is the manuscript well organized and written clearly enough to be accessible to non-specialists?

Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be directed to the authors themselves.


We often ask the original reviewers to evaluate revised manuscripts and the authors’ response to reviewer comments. We hope that you’ll make yourself available for re-review and questions from the editors.

Editing reviewers’ reports

The editors and PLOS staff will not change any reviewer comments that are intended for authors to read, except with reviewer approval prior to the decision letter being sent. For example, we may request changes if language is deemed inappropriate for professional communication, or if the comments contain information considered confidential, such as competing interest declarations.

The Editorial Process

Decision process

The editors make the final decision on whether to publish each submission based on the reviewers’ comments, the PLOS Climate criteria for publication, and their own assessment of the manuscript.

Conflicting reviews

If reviewers appear to disagree fundamentally, the editors may choose to share all the reviews with each of the reviewers and request additional comments that may help the editors to reach a decision. Decisions are not necessarily made according to majority rule. Experts may disagree, and it is the job of the Editor to make a decision. Editors evaluate reviewer recommendations and comments alongside comments by the authors and material that may not have been made available to reviewers. Please know that your recommendation has been duly considered and your service is appreciated, even if the final decision does not accord with your review.

More on our Editorial Process.


For more tips on peer review go to the Peer Review Center, and sign up to the Peer Review Toolbox.

If you have questions or concerns about the manuscript you are reviewing, or if you need assistance submitting the review, please email us