Peer review is the cornerstone of quality assurance in scientific publishing, and AGRL is deeply grateful to the members of the geoscience community who donate their time and expertise to reviewing manuscripts. This page provides guidance for all reviewers invited to assess manuscripts submitted to AGRL.
AGRL operates single-anonymised peer review as its default: authors know who the editor is but not who their reviewers are; reviewers know who the authors are. Double-anonymised review is available at authors' request — in this case reviewers assess an anonymised manuscript and are not informed of the authors' identities unless they choose to sign their review.
We do not currently operate open peer review (i.e. publication of reviewer reports alongside accepted articles) as standard, though we are actively monitoring developments in this area. Reviewers may choose to sign their reports at their own discretion.
You should decline to review a manuscript if you have any of the following: a current or recent collaborative relationship with an author (within the past 3 years); a significant personal or financial relationship that could bias your assessment; have been acknowledged in the submitted paper; or are employed at the same institution as any author. When in doubt, contact the handling editor before accepting.
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not use AI-based tools (including large language models) to process, summarise, or evaluate submitted manuscripts; doing so risks breaching the confidentiality of the authors' unpublished work. Reviewers may use standard grammar- and spell-checking tools when writing their reports, but the intellectual assessment must be entirely their own.
AGRL acknowledges the contribution of reviewers annually. Reviewers who complete timely, high-quality reviews may be recognised through the NRP Reviewer Recognition Programme. Contact the editorial office for details.