The main goal of peer review is to provide the Editor with information to make a fair, evidence-based decision according to the journal’s standards. Review reports should guide authors in revising their papers for possible publication, and if recommending rejection, reviewers should explain the key weaknesses to help authors improve their manuscript for submission elsewhere.

Reviewers must follow COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and maintain objectivity, avoiding personal criticism or defamatory remarks. They should evaluate manuscripts solely against the journal’s criteria and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, reviewers must decline the review.

Confidential comments to the Editor are allowed but should not contradict the main report. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the manuscripts and not discuss unpublished content with others. If a reviewer wishes to pass a review invitation to a colleague, they must first contact the journal. Reviewers are asked to assess various aspects of a manuscript, including the validity of results, originality, data quality, and appropriate use of statistics. They should provide clear, constructive feedback, suggest improvements, and ensure their comments are professional and courteous. Inappropriate language will be removed by the Editor.

The report should reflect the reviewer’s thought process, and any statements must be supported by facts and references. If unsure about discipline-specific standards, reviewers should consult the Editor. They should also refrain from requesting changes to maps or affiliations unless necessary for academic clarity.

Springer journals prioritize efficient editorial decisions, so reviewers are expected to respond promptly. If a delay is anticipated, they should notify the journal to ensure smooth communication with the authors and potentially find alternatives. For data notes, reviewers should focus on data quality and reusability rather than the novelty of findings, and they should avoid requesting extensive follow-up experiments outside the manuscript’s scope. For registered reports, the review process is divided into two stages: assessing study proposals (Stage 1) and evaluating the full study post-completion (Stage 2). In both stages, reviewers should ensure the methodology is sound, the study adheres to pre-registered protocols, and conclusions are justified.