Editor & Reviewer Toolkit

Practical resources for the work

A side-by-side comparison of journals' submission guidelines, and a starter library of adaptable correspondence templates for editors and reviewers. Both are starting points — members are warmly invited to contribute and improve them.

How journals' requirements compare — review model, length, style, AI policy, access, and a link to each journal's actual guidelines.

Researched June 2026 from publishers' author pages; some fields (where a page was login-gated) are marked unverified — always confirm on the live guidelines page. Corrections welcome via muec@groups.io.

Adaptable examples for the moments editors and reviewers repeat — desk decisions, reviewer communications, decision letters, and integrity/AI queries.

These are examples to adapt, not prescriptive standards, and are not copied from any journal. They are informed by COPE and ICMJE good-practice guidance and the ACT special issue on the ethics of authorship, reviewership, and editorship. Have a better version or a template to add? Contribute via muec@groups.io.