Instructions for referees

If you have been asked to serve as a referee for Science Studies and you are interested to do so please read the following guidelines that have been prepared to help you in you work.

Science Studies puts great emphasis on the quality of reviews. We are especially committed to the fair and impartial treatment of authors of manuscripts and work hard to develop and maintain a culture of academic rigour, without sacrificing diplomacy. Thus, we ask you to respond in a way that is constructive for the author, both in cases of acceptance and rejection. If you suggest revision, clearly point out what should be revised, and preferably also how. In the case of rejection, clearly articulate the reasons for rejection so as to help the author to write a better or more fitting piece next time.

In order to avoid undue delay in our response to our authors, we appreciate receiving referee comments within five weeks. If you are interested in doing the review but cannot meet the dead line, or if you are unable to comment on the manuscript at all, please inform us as soon as possible. In case of the latter, we would appreciate a suggestion for an alternative referee.

The review consists of two parts. On the one hand there is a list of questions that are to be answered with a yes, no or partially. The second part of the review consists of a freely formulated comment, in which you can explain your answers and go into further depth in the commenting. Please remember that the more specific you are in your comments and suggestions for revision, the better the quality of the review will be.

The following issues should be given particular attention:

• The relevance of the manuscript, its interest to scholars of science and technology studies, and its contribution to knowledge in the field.
• The quality of arguments, the soundness of methodology and reasoning, the quality of data, and the validity of analysis.
• Conciseness and comprehensiveness: would the manuscript benefit from shortening or deletion of any sections; have any relevant points not been considered?
• Any other comments that you feel are relevant concerning the manuscript.

Both the answers and the comment can be written directly into the electronic review sheet that has been sent to you. Please return the documents as an attachment to the corresponding Editor. In your conclusion, please indicate whether you recommend publication without revision, publication after minor textual revisions, publication only after major revision, or rejection

Your anonymous comments will be forwarded to the author. If you have recommendations for the editors only, please give these separately.

We thank you in advance for your kind cooperation.