Every reviewer should ask themselves the question “am I being a good colleague?” A good colleague is critical in a way that is thoughtful, constructive, respectful, and truthful. 

Remember that all reviews will be unblinded and published along with the original manuscript if it is accepted. 

Open Palaeontology editors reserve the right to disregard all or part of reviews that are disrespectful, not constructive, or that appear to have been written in bad faith (see Code of Conduct). Reviewers who provide multiple and/or egregiously unethical reviews (disrespectful, not constructive, or untruthful) will not be invited to review further submissions to Open Palaeontology and will not be allowed to submit work to Open Palaeontology. 

If you are interested in signing up as a potential reviewer for Open Palaeontology, please fill out this Google Form. Please note that information submitted through this form is accessible to Open Palaeontology Steering Committee and Editorial Team members. If you want to be removed from the list for any reason, please contact us. 

Reviewers should consider the following before accepting a review request: 

1. You have or can make sufficient time to prepare a collegiate review in a timely manner. We ask for a maximum four week turnaround, excepting extenuating circumstances for which please contact your HE. 
2. You have sufficient subject-area understanding (of at least part of the work) to write a thoughtful and constructive review. It is perfectly acceptable for a reviewer to only consider the aspects of a manuscript which they are properly equipped to review, but where there are major aspects of manuscript that you are not properly equipped to review you should make this clear to the HE at an early stage.  
3. You have no known or suspected conflicts of interest with the manuscript as presented.
1. Editors will attempt to avoid requesting reviews from close colleagues of the authors (identified through publication history and institutional affiliation). 
2. If the manuscript you receive is blinded but you suspect that you may have a close personal or professional relationship with one or more of the authors you should declare this to the handling editor who may decide to cancel the review request. 
3. You may have other conflicts of interest in relation to the manuscript. If you know or suspect you have a real or potential conflict of interest then you must declare it. A real or potential conflict of interest does not automatically exclude you from reviewing the work, but it must be declared so that the handling editor can make a decision on your suitability as a reviewer.

Reviewers should consider the following questions when preparing their review:

1. Is the topic of the paper of scientific interest to potential readers of Open Palaeontology? If not, there is no need to continue the review. 
2. Are the ideas and/or data in the paper original (i.e., have the same or very similar results been published elsewhere, except as a preprint)? If not, there is no need to continue the review. 
3. Are the methods appropriate for the questions/aims of the study? If not, there is no need to continue the review. 
4. Are the methods described in sufficient detail to make the experiments, analyses, and/or observations reproducible?
5. Are all data needed to replicate the analyses adequately available? We expect datasets analysed and/or extensively discussed in a manuscript to be published in an accessible format with the manuscript. Data should be accessible following the FAIR principles. 
6. Can the analyses, including any plots or statistical tests, be replicated by data and methods presented in the paper, its supplementary materials, and/or an accessible data repository?
7. Are the parameters and results of statistical techniques suitably reported? If you do not feel comfortable assessing the statistical methods, please report this to the HE in a timely manner, before completing your review, so that a statistical specialist reviewer can be sought if necessary. 
8. Is the manuscript appropriately referenced? 
9. Is the content of the manuscript clearly written? If not, should the manuscript be flagged for English language copy-editing?
10. Is the title suitable given the results?
11. Does the abstract accurately and adequately reflect the manuscript’s content?
12. Are the results clearly and accessibly presented? 
13. If the work includes systematic taxonomy, have the appropriate Codes (e.g. ICN, ICZN) been follower?
14. If a new zoological taxon is being erected, has the name been registered on ZooBank? (Editors will also check this.)
15. Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results?
16. Do figures appropriately display the data/results? 
17. Does the manuscript need to be this long?
18. If the manuscript disagrees substantially with the current consensus of the field is this explicitly described and is there a well-evidenced case for the authors’ position?