Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Navigation: Resources > For Reviewers > Before Accepting a Review Invitation

This resource establishes CorayNova Academic Press's requirements for reviewers before accepting a review invitation.

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when they have suitable expertise, sufficient availability, no disqualifying competing interests, and the ability to comply with CorayNova's confidentiality, ethics, and platform requirements.

Review timelines are determined by the journal's invitation letter or the task settings in the CorayNova Journals Platform. Reviewers should respond promptly, complete the review within the assigned timeframe, and request an extension or decline as early as possible if they cannot complete the review responsibly.

· Acceptance Requirements

Before Accepting

Reviewer Check

Required Action

Expertise

Do I have sufficient subject, method, data, clinical, technical, theoretical, or disciplinary expertise to assess the manuscript fairly?

Accept only if expertise is adequate for the assigned review role; otherwise decline or explain the limitation to the editor.

Availability

Can I complete the review by the deadline set in the invitation or platform task?

Accept only if the timeline is realistic. Request an extension or decline early if needed.

Competing interests

Do I have financial, institutional, collaborative, personal, competitive, supervisory, or other interests that could affect impartiality?

Disclose the concern and decline or seek editorial advice before accepting.

Confidentiality

Can I keep the manuscript and related materials confidential and secure?

Do not accept if confidentiality cannot be maintained.

Ethical compliance

Can I follow CorayNova's requirements on unpublished material, AI tools, respectful communication, and private reporting of ethical concerns?

Accept only if all requirements can be followed.

· Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any competing interest that may affect, or may reasonably appear to affect, independent assessment. Disclosure allows the editor to determine whether the reviewer may proceed, proceed with conditions, or should decline.

Recent collaboration within the past 3 years should normally be treated as a competing-interest indicator. Ongoing relationships, close personal relationships, direct supervisory relationships, strong competition, or serious personal conflict are not limited by the 3-year period and should be disclosed whenever they exist.

Competing Interest Area

Examples

Institutional or workplace connection

Current same institution, department, research group, company, funder, or closely connected institutional appointment.

Recent collaboration

Co-authorship, joint project, shared dataset, joint grant, shared patent, organized panel, or substantial collaboration within the past 3 years.

Supervisory or mentoring relationship

Current or former supervisor, student, mentor, mentee, examiner, advisor, or direct trainee relationship.

Personal or family relationship

Family member, close personal relationship, close friendship, personal dispute, or relationship likely to affect impartiality.

Financial or commercial interest

Employment, consultancy, honoraria, stock, patents, paid advisory roles, funding, or commercial interests connected to the work.

Competition or strong position

Direct competition, priority dispute, strong public position on the manuscript's topic, or serious personal conflict with an author.

· Alternative Reviewer Suggestions

Reviewers may suggest alternative reviewers when they cannot complete a review or when they know of another expert who may be better placed to assess the manuscript. The suggestion must include a clear reason and, where available, institutional contact information.

Editors independently decide whether to invite any suggested reviewer. Reviewers must not provide false identities, private email addresses presented as institutional contacts, unverified contacts, or suggested reviewers whose independence or expertise is uncertain.

· Assistance from Others

Reviewers must not share the manuscript, data, figures, tables, code, supplementary materials, review reports, or editorial correspondence with students, postdoctoral researchers, colleagues, laboratory members, collaborators, or any other person without prior editorial permission.

Early-career researchers may participate in reviewer training or supervised review assistance only with prior editorial permission, senior reviewer supervision, confidentiality obligations, and disclosure of the assisting person's name, role, and competing interests.

· Declining Responsibly

· Decline promptly if expertise, time, independence, confidentiality, or ethical compliance is not adequate.

· Briefly explain the reason for declining when this helps the editor, especially for scope, method, conflict, or availability issues.

· Suggest alternative reviewers only when the suggestion is genuine, relevant, and transparent.

· Do not delay a response when the manuscript requires timely editorial handling.

· Contacts

Questions about accepting or declining a review invitation, competing interests, alternative reviewers, or review assistance should be directed through the CorayNova Journals Platform or to editorial@coraynova.com. Technical problems should be directed to support@coraynova.com.