Peer review · Associate Editor
The Associate Editor runs peer review on a manuscript on the Editor-in-Chief’s behalf: choosing and inviting reviewers, keeping the review moving, judging whether the reports are adequate, and submitting a reasoned recommendation. The AE does not take the final accept or reject decision — that rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
Editor-in-Chief
Invited by
Reviewers
Invites
At least three
Reviewers, full submissions
Editor-in-Chief
Final decision
The task, end to end
Accept or decline the invitation
The EIC invites you from Manage Manuscripts → Invite AE. Sign in, switch to the AE role at the top right, open New Invitation, and accept or decline. Decline promptly if you cannot take it or hold a competing interest — a lapsed invitation delays the author. See Approach to a New Invitation.
Invite reviewers
Go to Manage Manuscripts → Invite Reviewer and select by name or by classification. Aim for at least three reviewers on a research article or other full submission.
Keep the review moving
Send reminders, uninvite a reviewer who has gone quiet, invite replacements, and handle extension requests. Watch the due date the EIC set.
Read the reports and judge whether they are enough
Where a review is too thin to support a decision, mark it insufficient and return the manuscript to the state that needs more reviewers rather than passing a weak evidence base to the EIC.
Submit your AE decision
Write your own assessment and give one of the four recommendations, with reasons. The EIC then decides.
Inviting reviewers
From Manage Manuscripts → Invite Reviewer you get three actions: Invite AE/Reviewer, Fast EIC/AE Decision, and Withdraw.
- Search by classification, not just by name. Classification lists every potential reviewer for a subject area, which is how you find people you do not already know.
- Search across the whole publisher. Choose Search in All Journals to reach the reviewer pool of all Brieflands journals, not only your own. The results panel shows how many tasks each person has already been invited to and how many they have not been invited to.
- Filter to reviewers with an ORCID iD or a Publons profile where you want a verifiable track record.
- Dates: the start date must be earlier than the due date, or the task will not save.
- The invitation email is editable, and you can add CC or BCC recipients before sending.
- Re-inviting for a revision: to bring back the reviewer who saw the earlier version, open the revision you want and invite from there.
- Someone not yet in the system: ask the EIC to add them through Manage Users → Invite a New Person (email and full name). An existing user needs an Assign Role action instead.
You may also correct a reviewer’s subject classification. Keeping classifications accurate is what makes the search work for the next AE, so fix one when you notice it is wrong. Detail: Finding and Inviting Reviewers.
Deadlines, extensions and unresponsive reviewers
The extension rule
A review task can be extended once only, and only within the outer due date the EIC has already set. The default extension is seven days. Extend from TO-DO: My Reviewer Tasks → Submit Review → Extend Time, giving a short reason.
Rejected and expired tasks appear in a counter at the top of your panel; click Manage to see why each one lapsed and act on it — set a new date, refer it to someone else, or invite a new reviewer. Full detail: Review Deadlines and Declined Tasks.
If your own task runs late, the EIC sees it under Review Tools → Delayed AE and chooses between extending your due date and handing the manuscript to another Associate Editor. Staying responsive is what keeps you on the manuscript — see Treat Delayed AE Tasks.
Reading the reports
Open Submit AE Decision, then the Peer Review Process table. It lists every reviewer with their status, decision and timings. The green See Review button opens a reviewer’s complete form.
Public comments
Visible to all the authors. Everything you want the author to act on goes here.
Confidential comments
Visible only to the Editor-in-Chief. Suspicions of misconduct, doubts about a reviewer, and anything you would not put to the author belong here.
You may edit a reviewer’s comments — but only while the manuscript is in Waiting for AE. Open See Review, make the change, and click Save Review. Use this to remove abusive or identifying wording and to fix language, never to change a reviewer’s scientific judgement or their recommendation. All comments must be written in English.
Files. You and the reviewers can upload files during review through Upload → Select File. These are visible to the editorial board only unless someone clicks Allow Author Access, so check before assuming an author has seen an annotated file.
Your recommendation
Choose one of four, and give a clear reason grounded in scientific merit, originality and fit with the journal’s scope — never the authors’ nationality, institution, gender or seniority.
| Recommendation | Choose it when |
| Accept | Sound and complete as it stands. |
| Minor | The conclusions hold; what is needed is clarification, better reporting or a missing detail. No new analysis, no re-review expected. |
| Major | Possibly publishable, but the methods, analysis or reporting need substantial work, or a claim is unsupported. You expect to see it again. |
| Reject | The flaws cannot be repaired by revision, or the work is out of scope. Say which — an out-of-scope rejection is not a judgement on the science. |
Keep the recommendation consistent with your comments. A report full of fundamental objections with “Accept” attached tells the EIC nothing. Fast AE Decision exists for cases that plainly need no external review, and should be used sparingly and explained.
Your obligations
- Confidentiality. The manuscript, the reviewer identities and the correspondence are confidential. Do not show, quote, forward or use any of it, and do not contact the authors directly. This does not lapse if the manuscript is rejected.
- Competing interests. Declare on every manuscript you are assigned, and recuse where an interest exists — collaboration or rivalry with the authors, a shared institution, recent co-authorship, or a commercial interest in the outcome. Declaration is mandatory; “none” must still be declared. See Conflict of Interest.
- Never put the manuscript into a generative AI tool. Uploading it, or any part of it, breaches confidentiality because the text leaves your control. What AI use is permitted in preparing comments: Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review.
- Anonymity. Review is double-anonymised while it runs. After the decision, reviewers who consented have their reports published — see Open Peer Review. Do not reveal a reviewer’s identity to an author at any point.
- Suspected misconduct — plagiarism, image manipulation, data fabrication, undisclosed conflicts — goes to the EIC in the confidential field, not to the author. The procedure is in Allegations of Misconduct.
What is not the AE’s decision
The Editor-in-Chief takes the final accept or reject decision, appoints and replaces Associate Editors, sets the outer review deadline, and decides on withdrawal, correction, expression of concern and retraction. Your recommendation informs that decision; it does not make it. See Manage Peer Review by EIC and Editorial Independence and Responsibilities.
Recognition
Associate Editors can download an online validated certificate for the work they have done — Certificate for Associate Editors and Reviewers.