This section outlines the essential policies and procedures that reviewers must understand when evaluating a manuscript submitted to Leapman. Reviewers are requested to read this guidance carefully before completing their evaluations.

General peer review standards applicable to all Leapman publications are available in the Editorial Policies section of the Leapman website.

1. Criteria for Publication

Leapman receives a significantly greater number of submissions than it can accommodate in each publication cycle. Reviewers are therefore asked to assess manuscripts according to the following key criteria:

• The data presented are methodologically sound and technically robust.

• The conclusions are supported by strong and coherent evidence.

• The findings represent a novel contribution to the field (presentation at conferences or deposition on preprint servers does not compromise novelty).

• The manuscript presents results of clear importance within its specific discipline.

• The content will be of interest to a broad interdisciplinary readership.

In general, papers considered suitable for publication inLeapman should represent a significant advancement in understanding, with potential to influence ongoing research directions. Manuscripts that are primarily of narrow, specialist interest, or that represent incremental advances, are less likely to meet Leapman’s publication standards.

2. The Review Process

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial editorial evaluation. Only those papers deemed to have potential to meet Leapman’s editorial criteria are sent for external peer review. Manuscripts judged to be of limited general interest, or otherwise unsuitable, are declined without external review to expedite the process for authors.

Manuscripts selected for formal review are typically sent to three independent reviewers. Based on the reviewers’ reports, editors may take one of the following actions:

• Accept the manuscript, with or without editorial revisions.

• Request a revision addressing specific concerns before reaching a final decision.

• Decline the manuscript but invite resubmission after substantial further work.

• Reject the manuscript without invitation for resubmission, due to issues such as limited novelty, inadequate conceptual advance, or significant technical flaws.

While reviewers are encouraged to provide recommendations, Leapman editors weigh all reports critically. Divergent reviewer opinions are common, and editorial decisions are made based on the strength and reasoning of the arguments presented, rather than by majority vote.

Editors may request additional input from reviewers in cases of disagreement or where clarification is needed. While reviewer follow-up is appreciated, Leapman aims to minimize repeated consultations to respect the time and efforts of all parties.

When reviewers agree to assess a manuscript, they are committing to reviewing subsequent revisions as necessary. However, if it appears that authors have not made serious efforts to address the initial concerns, resubmissions may be rejected without further review.

Technical criticisms are taken particularly seriously. When significant technical concerns are raised by a single reviewer, editors may seek additional opinions or consult with other reviewers to assess whether the concerns are appropriately rigorous.

3. Transparent Peer Review

Leapman supports a transparent peer review model. For manuscripts submitted after January 2025, the reviewer reports and author responses for published original research Articles may be made publicly available.

Authors will be given the option to opt out of transparent peer review after the peer review process is complete but before final acceptance.

Peer review files are published online as supplementary material alongside the final article. These files include reviewer comments and author rebuttal letters but do not contain internal editorial deliberations or confidential communications.

Transparent peer review applies only to original research Articles and does not extend to Reviews, Commentaries, or other content types.

Further details are available onLeapman’s Peer Review FAQ page.

4. Reviewer Acknowledgment

Leapman formally acknowledges the contributions of reviewers to the peer review process. Every peer-reviewed article will include an anonymous reviewer acknowledgment statement.

For reviewers who consent to be named, their names will appear alphabetically at the end of the published article. However, the specific linkage between reviewer names and individual reports will remain confidential unless a reviewer explicitly chooses to sign their comments to the authors.

Acknowledgment examples:

• If all reviewers agree to be named:

  Leapman thanks [Name], [Name], and [Name] for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

• If only some reviewers agree to be named:

  Leapman thanks [Name], [Name], and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

• If all reviewers remain anonymous:

  Leapman thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

5. Selection of Reviewers

Selection of appropriate reviewers is crucial. Leapman selects reviewers based on expertise, professional reputation, specific recommendations, and prior experience with the journal.

Factors such as review timeliness, fairness, and constructive engagement are also considered. Reviewers who have previously exhibited chronic delays, excessive severity, or laxity may not be invited.

Potential reviewers are contacted with confidential information and are expected to treat all correspondence as strictly confidential.

6. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all materials associated with the review process as confidential. Manuscripts should not be shared with anyone outside the review process unless permission has been explicitly granted by the editor.

Consultation with laboratory colleagues is permitted with prior disclosure to the editorial office. Consultation with experts outside the referee’s institution requires prior approval.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts into generative AI platforms or similar tools.

7. Timing Expectations

Leapman values a prompt editorial process. Reviewers are typically requested to submit reports within two weeks of accepting a review invitation, unless alternative arrangements have been made.

If delays are anticipated, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly to allow reallocation or communication with the authors.

8. Anonymity

Reviewer identities are confidential unless a reviewer requests otherwise. Leapman does not disclose reviewer identities to authors or to other reviewers without explicit consent.

If a reviewer wishes to reveal their identity to the authors, this should be done through the editorial office, ensuring that proper procedures are followed.

Leapman does not confirm or deny any speculations about reviewer identities and recommends that reviewers adopt a similar policy.

9. Editing Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports are transmitted to authors in their entirety. Editors do not censor or suppress reviewer comments, although offensive language or inappropriate disclosure of confidential information may be removed.

Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, respectful feedback and to phrase criticisms clearly and professionally.

10. Competing Interests

Leapman strives to avoid selecting reviewers who may have conflicts of interest. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors,

• Direct competition to publish similar findings,

• Past disputes with the authors,

• Financial or personal interests tied to the outcome.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts promptly. If objectivity cannot be maintained, reviewers are expected to decline the invitation.

It is understood that reviewers active in the same field may naturally have perspectives shaped by their work; healthy skepticism does not disqualify a reviewer, provided their review remains fair and evidence-based.

Reviewers who have previously assessed the manuscript for another journal are not automatically disqualified and are encouraged to participate, recognizing that expertise is valuable across journals.

How to Prepare a Review Report

The primary purpose of a peer review report is to provide Leapman editors with a thorough and objective evaluation that informs the editorial decision-making process. In addition, reviewers are encouraged to offer constructive feedback to authors, outlining how the manuscript could be strengthened to meet Leapman’s publication standards.

While feedback to authors is important, reviewers should prioritize providing the editors with clear, factual information. Detailed advice to authors is encouraged but not obligatory for manuscripts deemed fundamentally unsuitable for publication.

1. Principles of Report Writing

• All scientific assessments and feedback relevant to the manuscript must be included in the comments intended for authors.

• Comments directed exclusively to the editors should be reserved for sensitive matters, such as ethical concerns or professional conflicts, and should not contradict the main review provided to the authors.

• Reviewers are accountable for the evaluations and opinions expressed in their reports. Leapman expects reports to be based on the reviewers’ own critical analysis.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools at any stage. If AI tools were used to assist in any part of the evaluation (e.g., summarizing literature, checking statistics), the use must be transparently disclosed in the peer review report.

2. Key Elements to Address in the Review

Reviewers are requested to address the following aspects where applicable:

2.1 Summary of Key Results

Please provide a brief summary of what you consider the outstanding features and principal contributions of the work.

2.2 Assessment of Validity

Evaluate whether the manuscript contains technical flaws, experimental errors, or logical inconsistencies that would prevent it from being suitable for publication. If such issues exist, please provide specific details.

2.3 Originality and Significance

Assess the originality of the findings. If the conclusions are not novel, please cite relevant prior literature. On a broader note, comment on whether the results are likely to attract immediate interest within the specific discipline and potentially across related fields.

2.4 Evaluation of Data and Methodology

Critically examine the experimental design, methodologies employed, and quality of the data presented. Reviewers are expected to assess all data, including material provided in Supplementary Information.

2.5 Use of Statistics and Uncertainty Reporting

Where applicable, assess the appropriateness of statistical analyses and the treatment of uncertainties. Confirm whether error bars are properly defined in figure legends, whether statistical tests are suitable, and whether probability values are accurately described.

Please include a specific comment regarding the statistical robustness of the manuscript.

2.6 Strength of the Conclusions

Determine whether the conclusions are supported by the data and analyses presented. Evaluate whether the interpretations are reliable, appropriately cautious, and justified by the evidence.

2.7 Suggestions for Improvement

List any additional experiments, analyses, or clarifications that would substantially strengthen the manuscript if the authors were to revise and resubmit.

2.8 Appropriateness of References

Comment on whether the manuscript references previous literature appropriately and comprehensively. Indicate if important relevant studies are missing or if citations are used inappropriately.

2.9 Clarity and Context

Evaluate the clarity and accessibility of the abstract and introduction. Comment on whether the background provided is appropriate and whether the context of the study is sufficiently established for a broad readership.

3. Scope of Review

If any aspects of the manuscript, including specific datasets, methodologies, or analyses, fall outside the reviewer’s area of expertise or could not be fully assessed, please state this explicitly in the report. Transparency about the limits of the evaluation helps ensure a fair editorial decision.

Leapman requests that all peer review reports be submitted through our secure online submission system. Reviewers will find a personalized link provided in the invitation or reminder email from the editorial office.

To ensure an efficient and confidential review process, we strongly encourage reviewers to submit their evaluations exclusively via this system.

The online platform is designed to facilitate:

• Secure transmission of confidential comments to the editors,

• Delivery of detailed feedback intended for the authors,

• Management of reviewer disclosures regarding any competing interests,

• Submission of any required declarations regarding the use of AI tools in the review process.

If you encounter technical difficulties accessing the system or require additional time to complete your report, please contact the Leapman editorial office promptly for assistance.

We thank all reviewers for their commitment to maintaining the highest standards of scientific evaluation and for supporting the integrity of the peer review process.

At Leapman, it is standard practice to invite reviewers who assessed an initial submission to review all subsequent revisions of the same manuscript. This continuity is crucial for ensuring consistency in the evaluation process and for maintaining the integrity of the peer review.

When a revised manuscript is submitted, Leapman provides reviewers with:

• The revised version of the manuscript,

• A point-by-point response from the authors addressing each comment,

• Copies of the reports from all reviewers involved in the previous evaluation round.

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the critiques and whether the revisions have sufficiently improved the manuscript to meet Leapman’s editorial standards.

Reviewers are routinely informed of the editorial decisions taken on manuscripts they have reviewed. Following a final decision, Leapman transmits a summary of the outcome along with anonymized copies of all reviewer reports for transparency.

In instances where a manuscript is accepted despite a recommendation for rejection from one or more reviewers, the concerned reviewers will be explicitly notified. Such decisions reflect the editors’ responsibility to weigh all expert opinions carefully and to make an independent final judgment based on the overall merit of the manuscript and its relevance to the broader scientific community.

Divergence among expert opinions is an expected and respected aspect of scholarly peer review. When reviewers’ recommendations differ, editorial decisions are based not on consensus alone but on the strength and reasoning of the evaluations provided. A decision contrary to a particular reviewer’s recommendation does not imply a lack of confidence in their judgment or expertise.

Leapman deeply values the time, expertise, and critical insights provided by all reviewers, which are indispensable to the maintenance of the highest standards of scientific publication.