Information for Reviewers

About Peer Review in Science Robotics

The members of the scientific community who serve as peer reviewers for Science Robotics are essential to ensuring the quality of the articles published in the journal. They perform an invaluable service to the entire community of science. Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system.

Only some of the papers submitted to Science Robotics are reviewed in depth. For in-depth review, at least two outside referees are consulted. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and are asked to return comments within 1 to 2 weeks for most papers. Reviewers may be selected to evaluate separate components of a manuscript. We only ask the original reviewers of a manuscript to rereview the revised version if we believe the paper has been significantly improved but still requires expert review. The final responsibility for decisions of acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts lies with the editors.

Research Articles and Reviews are always peer reviewed. Perspectives and Commentary articles may also be evaluated by outside experts, although this is at the discretion of the editor. Each type of contribution has specific criteria (see below); however, all submissions are reviewed for scientific accuracy, clarity, and conciseness of presentation. We prefer to receive referee comments through our Manuscript Submission and Information Portal at https://cts.sciencemag.org.

The review process is conducted anonymously; Science Robotics never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Advisory Board.

Back to Top

Downloading the manuscript and submitting your review

Access the manuscript for review and submit your review at the Science Journals Manuscript Submission and Information Portal: https://cts.sciencemag.org.

If you need assistance, please email us at sciroboteditors@aaas.org

Back to Top

Guidelines for Reviewers

  1. Disinterested evaluation. Reviews should be objective assessments of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review, and you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments. Likewise, if, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review.
  2. Considerate, useful comments. Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; Science Robotics reserves the right to edit comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts.
  3. Timeliness. Just as you wish prompt evaluations of your own research, please return your reviews within the time period specified when you were asked to review the paper. If events will prevent a timely review, please inform the editor at the time of the request.
  4. Confidentiality. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors' specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).
  5. Anonymity. The review process is conducted anonymously; Science never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Advisory Board.
  6. Editorial Policies. You should be aware of Science Roboticspolicies  for authors regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.

Additional information about peer review is available at:

Council of Science Editors, White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications
The World Association of Medical Editors
Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, January 2000).

Back to Top

Instructions for Reviewers of Individual Article Types

PRE (Peer Review Evaluation)

The Science family of journals uses the PRE (Peer Review Evaluation) service to share information about our peer review process and show our commitment to the integrity of scientific communication. Click the PRE badge image on our article pages for at-a-glance information about the peer review process for each research article including method of review, number of reviewers, and rounds of review. Readers also have quick access to our peer review policy and the organizations and standards we support.