Reviewers

Peer Review for Books & Proceedings

At Springer Nature, we believe that peer review is a cornerstone in developing high-quality content. We use both external peer review (consulting with experts in the field) and internal review (with in-house specialists). This guide explains the value that you bring as a peer reviewer, how peer review informs publishing decisions, and offers advice on how to write a constructive review. 

Being a book peer reviewer is a fantastic opportunity to support the advancement of knowledge in your field and by guiding authors and editors in how to improve their publication.  

Reviewing a book proposal is a different experience to reviewing a journal article. The type of content that you are sent to review can range from a proposal with a description of the proposed content and a provisional table of contents through to sample chapters or even a draft manuscript. When reviewing the content, you should be considering whether the book adequately covers the subject area, and whether the authors are targeting the right audience.  The feedback that you give can help shape the final published book. 

Protecting research integrity 

Spoit it © springernature 2025

Peer reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the content we publish is robust, ethical and free from misconduct, such as author manipulation or plagiarism. 

Springer Nature is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE guidelines on dealing with potential acts of misconduct. We ask peer reviewers to follow the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers to safeguard research integrity. 

The review process

When considering a new book project, we require materials detailing the book concept, such as a book proposal, sample chapters, or a full manuscript. These materials are assessed by subject experts (peer reviewers), whose feedback helps us decide whether to: 

  • Accept the proposal and offer a contract, or 
  • Request revisions and resubmit the material, or
  • Reject the proposal.  

Some completed manuscripts may get reviewed upon submission, before production work begins. As with the proposal, the manuscript is sent to experts for assessment and feedback, who may be the same people we asked to review the original book proposal.

Who benefits from peer review? 

  • Peer reviewers: Keep up to date on current publications in your area and help shape the future of the subject. 
  • Author(s)/editor(s): External feedback ensures that the book is relevant and of interest to the target audience. Comments, both positive and negative, will improve the book. 
  • The Publisher: Reviewer feedback guides our decision to publish the book. 
  • Readers: Ensure high-quality content for future readers. 

Different types of peer review 

We use two types of peer review: 

  • Single-anonymous review – the reviewer knows the identity of the author(s)/editor(s), but the author(s)/editor(s) do not know the reviewer’s identity. This allows for more honest feedback.  
  • Double-anonymous review - neither the reviewer nor the author(s)/editor(s) knows the other’s identity. This ensures that feedback is based solely on the quality of the material and is free from personal bias. 

Please refer to your invitation to review to understand which approach will be used. 

Our peer review policy can be found at Book Publishing Policies | Springer Nature. 

Stage I: Receiving an invitation to review

You have been invited to be a peer reviewer because we believe you are an expert in your field. Before accepting an invitation to review, you should consider the following factors: 

  • Expertise: Are you familiar with the specific topic covered in the proposal? If not, please let us know. 
  • Time: Can you meet the review deadline? Missing the deadline may mean that your feedback is too late to be considered.  
  • Competing interest: Are there any issues that may affect your ability to give a fair and impartial review? For example, financial interests in the research, personal opinions on the topic of the book, or personal or professional relationships with the author(s)/editor(s). If you think you may have a conflict of interest, please discuss it with us. 

Confidentiality 

Book proposals, sample materials and manuscripts under review are highly confidential. You may not discuss the material with others without prior consent from us. Please see our peer review policy at Book Publishing Policies | Springer Nature. 

Stage II: Conducting the review

The following is meant as general guidance for assessing a book idea. In some cases, peer reviewers may be asked to address specific questions, but these will be made clear to you in your invitation. 

Please note: 

  • You should never plagiarize the content or ideas presented in the review materials. 
  • It is considered unethical to use information in the manuscript to make business decisions, such as buying or selling stock.
  • You should not use AI tools when reviewing the materials. You have been selected as a reviewer specifically because of your expertise and because we want your thoughts and comments. The value in reviewing is that it is done by a human, not by a machine. Please see our peer review policy for the latest information on the use of AI in peer review. 

Reviewing a proposal 

There are several key aspects to consider when assessing a book proposal: 

  • Authorship: Does the author(s)/editor(s) have the expertise to write this book? 
  • Diversity: Does the book have a diverse authorship? This is particularly important for edited volumes. 
  • Representation: If the book is describing a particular region or community, does the authorship include authors from that region/community? 
  • Book title: Does the title accurately say what the book is about? 
  • Table of contents: Are the chapters appropriate and logical? Are there any topics that seem out of place, or any topics that are missing? 
  • Target audience: Is the content suitable for the intended audience? 
  • Series: If the book is intended for a specific book series, does the material fit with the scope of the series? 

Reviewing sample content or full manuscripts 

In addition to the above, if you have further materials to assess you should also consider the following: 

  • Completeness: Has the author(s)/editor(s) adequately covered the topic? Writing quality: Is the material well written? Do you have any concerns about the author(s)/editor(s)’s writing abilities?
  • Writing quality: Is the material well written? Do you have any concerns about the author(s)/editor(s)’s writing abilities? 
  • References: Does the author(s)/editor(s) cite relevant materials? 
  • Revisions: If you initially reviewed the proposal for this book, has your feedback been sufficiently addressed by the author(s)/editor(s)? 

Research integrity 

Spoit it © springernature 2025

You can help identify possible misconduct issues by looking for the following issues: 

  • Author manipulation: Unusual or suspicious authorship. 
  • Citation manipulation: Questionable references or over-citation of the author(s)/editor(s)’ own work. 
  • AI generated content: Text strings that sound reasonable but have no true meaning or are pure nonsense. Unnatural phrasing used in place of recognized terms (also known as “tortured phrases"). 
  • Plagiarism: Do you believe any of the content to have been plagiarized? 

Our Book Peer Reviewers' Code of Conduct details the minimum standards that we expect Peer Reviewers to follow. 

Stage III: Writing the review

Your review should be constructive and aimed at helping the author(s)/editor(s) improve their proposal. When writing your review: 

  • Start with positives: Highlight strengths before addressing issues. What has the author(s)/editor(s) done well? 
  • Provide examples: Be specific in your feedback and suggest improvements. For example, if a chapter lacks depth, suggest specific areas that could be expanded. 
  • Avoid personal attacks: Be respectful and objective in your criticism. 
  • Offer additional resources: Suggest further references that might improve the book. 
  • Be fair: Recognize where your expertise may be limited and recommend additional reviews if necessary. 

Your reviewer report should be divided into two parts: 

  1. Comments for the Publishing Editor: Confidential recommendations about whether to accept, revise, or reject the proposal. 
  2. Comments for the author(s)/editor(s): Detailed feedback to help the author(s) /editor(s) improve their manuscript, including both positive and negative aspects. 

After the review 

Once we received your review, we will discuss the feedback with the author(s)/editor(s) and ask for revisions where necessary. If resubmitted materials require further review, we may contact you to assess the new submission. If this happens: 

  • Focus on the issues that you raised and whether they have been addressed. 
  • If the author(s)/editor(s) have not addressed your suggestions, evaluate their reasons fairly. 
  • If a significant issue remains unresolved, explain why further changes are necessary. 

Interested in writing a book?

We hope this guide has helped you better understand the review process works and feel confident in becoming a reviewer. 

You may now be inspired to write a book yourself! We would be happy to discuss any ideas that you may have. Please visit Publish a book for information on publishing with Springer Nature.