Reviewers

Reviewing for ExSil means checking an examination by repeating it. This page explains what reviewers do and what the journal expects of them.

What reviewers do

1. Declare any conflict of interest before starting. If you have worked on, funded, competed with or been in dispute with the software, data or people involved, tell the handling editor.
2. Rerun the test from the authors’ archived materials, following their instructions as written. Record your environment and whether your results match theirs.
3. Check the requirements using the reviewer checklist, posted as a comment on the submission issue.
4. Judge the claims. Do the conclusions follow from the results? Is the reference truly independent? Are the size and limits of the problem stated accurately?
5. Recommend a decision: accept, minor revisions, major revisions or reject, with reasons.

Standards of conduct

• Review the work, not the people. Comments about the authors or the maintainers’ competence have no place in a review.
• Be specific. Point to the exact section, result or step that needs attention, and say what would resolve it.
• Remember that the maintainers of the examined software may read every word. Errors in widely used tools are common and usually honest; the journal’s purpose is to document them accurately, not to embarrass anyone.
• Reviews are public and signed with your GitHub account.

Timing

Reviewers are asked to complete their review within four weeks of accepting the invitation. If you cannot, tell the handling editor as early as possible.

Volunteering

To volunteer as a reviewer, open an issue with the Volunteer to review form in the submissions repository.