Docs · Writing and submission
Internal peer review
Review rounds on a manuscript before submission: invite colleagues, collect structured reviews with recommendations and scores, keep identities blind if you wish, decide, and export the report.
Updated 2026-09-12Open a project
Rounds
- Project → Peer review: pick the manuscript and open a round with a type — team (everyone sees who wrote what), blind (reviewer names hidden from everyone but the round's manager and project leads) or open (all reviews visible to all) — an optional deadline and a brief for reviewers.
- Invite reviewers from the project's members; they are notified and accept or decline. Add people to the project from the Team tab first (the reviewer title is made for this: comment and screen without editing).
Writing a review
- Reviewers choose a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject), score originality, methodology, clarity and significance from 1 to 5, and write a summary, strengths, weaknesses, suggestions and confidential comments to the editor.
- Inline comments left in the manuscript during the round are part of the review — reviewers open the manuscript from the round.
- Leads are notified when a review arrives; in blind rounds the notification does not name the reviewer.
Decision and report
- The round's manager closes it with a decision and a summary for authors and reviewers; rounds can be reopened.
- Report exports the round as Markdown — decision, every review with its scores and sections (confidential comments only for managers) — to file with the submission or share with co-authors. Journal reviewer comments after submission live under Submissions.
Something missing or wrong? Tell us.