A GRHAS review should help the editor judge the contribution and give authors a clear account of the work needed to improve it. Assess the manuscript in relation to its research question, article type and disciplinary context.

Before accepting

Read the invitation and abstract to judge whether the topic matches your expertise and whether you can meet the proposed deadline. Declare recent collaboration, close personal relationships, institutional conflicts or other relevant interests before accepting. Explain any area outside your expertise so that the editor can arrange additional assessment.

Accept an assignment only when you can provide an independent report. Contact the editor promptly if your circumstances change. Obtain editorial permission before involving a colleague or trainee, and ensure that any approved contributor follows the same confidentiality obligations.

Assessing the contribution

Identify the question, claimed contribution and scholarly conversation. Evaluate whether the evidence and reasoning support the conclusions and whether the article represents the relevant literature accurately. Give particular attention to the difference between a new interpretation, a new source base, a methodological contribution and a descriptive account.

For humanities research, examine source selection, contextualisation, quotation, translation and the treatment of alternative readings. For social research, consider design, sampling, analysis and participant safeguards. For artistic research, evaluate how the documented practice supports the stated inquiry and how the reader can assess that relationship.

Preparing the report

Begin with a concise account of the contribution and your overall assessment. Present major issues in order of importance, explaining their effect on the argument and what would resolve them. Refer to specific passages, sources, tables or supplementary files. Separate essential revisions from optional extensions and minor presentation corrections.

Use professional, specific language. A useful report explains why a claim needs support or an interpretation needs reconsideration. Suggest citations when they address an identified gap. Distinguish problems of scholarly substance from personal preferences about style or approach.

Recommendation

Support the recommendation with the report: acceptance for work ready for publication; minor revision for limited corrections; major revision where substantial changes could establish a sound contribution; and rejection where the central problem cannot reasonably be resolved through revision. Inform the editor when additional specialist advice is needed.

Use confidential comments for an integrity concern, identity issue or other information that should be discussed privately. Keep the author-facing report focused on the manuscript and the changes required.

Confidentiality and follow-up

Treat the manuscript and reports as confidential. Do not contact the authors about the submission, circulate material or use unpublished findings in your own work. Do not upload manuscripts or review reports to public generative AI services.

For a revised manuscript, assess the authors’ response and the remaining substantive concerns. The editor retains responsibility for the final decision. Continue to protect unpublished material and correspondence after the assignment ends.