Can reviews be anonymous?

Yes. Many journals use anonymous (blind or double-blind) reviews; configure the form to record an anonymous reviewer token while preserving an internal identity link for editors if necessary.

Is an electronic signature valid?

Yes in most cases. Electronic signatures are legally enforceable under the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §7001) and UETA where adopted, provided intent, consent, attribution, and retention requirements are satisfied.

When is notarization required?

Rarely for peer reviews. Notarization is generally unnecessary unless the form serves a separate legal purpose; verify state-specific rules if notarization is contemplated.

How long must forms be kept?

Retention depends on institutional policy and applicable law; financial or healthcare-related records may require 3 years (IRC §6501(a)) or 6 years for HIPAA (45 CFR §164.530(j)).

What if a conflict is discovered later?

Document the newly disclosed conflict, assess whether it affected the review, and record any corrective actions; retain documentation for audit or appeal.

How to authenticate remote signatures?

Use platform authentication options (email, SMS, KBA, or stronger methods) and preserve audit trails showing signer attribution, time, and IP address for evidentiary support.

Electronic Signature
Templates
Miscellaneous
Academic Peer Review Form

Academic Peer Review Form

This template is fully customizable. Edit the text, fill out the fields, and send it for signature. Give it a try!

ACADEMIC PEER REVIEW FORM AND REVIEWER AGREEMENT

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Journal/Institution: (hereinafter "Publisher") seeks an independent, confidential evaluation of a submitted manuscript; and

WHEREAS, Reviewer Name: agrees to perform review services under the terms set forth below.

REVIEWER INFORMATION

Affiliation Email

Review Start Date: Review Due Date:

MANUSCRIPT DETAILS

Manuscript Title Manuscript ID / Reference Number Authors (as listed)

SCOPE OF WORK

Reviewer shall conduct an objective, confidential evaluation of the manuscript including assessment of originality, methodology, relevance to the field, ethics compliance, and clarity. Reviewer shall submit written findings, recommend one of the disposition options below, and provide any annotated file(s) if requested.

Detailed scope, instructions, and deliverables

REVIEW CRITERIA (RATE EACH)

Rating scale: Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor

Originality Excellent Good Fair Poor

Methodology and Rigor Excellent Good Fair Poor

Clarity of Presentation Excellent Good Fair Poor

Literature and Referencing Excellent Good Fair Poor

OVERALL RECOMMENDATION

Accept as is Minor revision Major revision Reject

REVIEWER COMMENTS

Summary of strengths Principal weaknesses and required revisions Detailed comments to author (may be shared with author) Confidential comments to editor (do not share with author)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

I declare no conflicts of interest with the authors or the content of this manuscript. I disclose the following potential conflict(s)

If disclosure, describe nature of conflict

PAYMENT TERMS

If applicable, Publisher agrees to pay an honorarium to Reviewer in consideration for review services. Honorarium Amount: $ . Payment Schedule:

Late payment will accrue interest at on overdue amounts, calculated monthly.

TERM AND TERMINATION

This Agreement commences on Start Date: and will continue until Completion Date: unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Either party may terminate for convenience with prior written notice of days. Publisher may terminate immediately for cause, including suspected ethical violations, plagiarism, or breach of confidentiality.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Reviewer acknowledges that the manuscript and all related materials and communications are confidential. Reviewer will not copy, disclose, or use any confidential information except as necessary to perform the review and provide required comments to Publisher. Upon request or upon termination, Reviewer shall promptly destroy or return all confidential materials and any copies.

GOVERNING LAW

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of: , without regard to conflict of law principles.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Form and any attachments constitute the entire agreement between Publisher and Reviewer with respect to the review services, superseding all prior negotiations and agreements, whether written or oral. Any amendment must be in writing and signed by both parties.

CERTIFICATIONS

I certify that I will treat the manuscript and related materials as confidential and will not disclose them to others. I have not and will not engage in plagiarism or misrepresentation in performing this review. I will disclose any material conflicts of interest to the Editor and recuse myself if such conflicts cannot be resolved.

SIGNATURES

Reviewer Printed Name:

By:

Date:

Reviewer Affiliation (printed):

Journal Representative Printed Name:

By:

Date:

Representative Title:

What the Academic Peer Review Form Is and Why It Exists

The Academic Peer Review Form is a standardized record used by journals, conferences, departments, and review panels to collect structured evaluations of manuscripts, grant proposals, theses, or teaching materials. It captures reviewer identity or designation (anonymous or named), evaluation criteria, scores or qualitative comments, recommended decisions (accept, revise, reject), conflict-of-interest disclosures, and optional confidential notes to editors. The form creates a consistent, auditable trail to support editorial decisions, appeals, institutional oversight, and accreditation reviews while documenting the review timeline and actions taken.

Why a Standard Form Improves Peer Review Consistency

A formal Academic Peer Review Form standardizes criteria, reduces variability across reviewers, and preserves rationale for editorial decisions. It supports fairness, simplifies aggregation of scores and comments, and creates an auditable record for accreditation or dispute resolution.

Who Typically Completes or Manages This Form

Editors, review managers, and appointed reviewers typically complete or coordinate completion of the Academic Peer Review Form.

Journal editors and editorial board members overseeing submissions and decisions.
External peer reviewers providing subject-matter evaluation and written recommendations.
Conference program committee members assessing abstracts and full papers for acceptance.

Administrative staff and institutional compliance officers may retain forms for recordkeeping, audits, and accreditation reporting.

Representative Roles Who Sign or Authorize the Form

Dr. Elena Morales, Editor

An editor assigns reviewers, verifies completeness of reviews, and records the final editorial decision. The editor uses the form to document rationale for acceptance or rejection and to maintain a consistent record for appeals and accreditation.

Prof. Samuel Lee, Reviewer

A subject-matter reviewer completes evaluation fields, indicates strengths and weaknesses, declares conflicts of interest, and records any confidential notes to editors. The signature or recorded attribution links the review to a reviewer identity or an anonymous review token.

Essential Form Fields and Data Points

Reviewer Name: Full legal name

Reviewer Role: Affiliation and title

Manuscript ID: Journal or submission identifier

Evaluation Criteria: Predefined rubric items

Recommendation: Accept/Revise/Reject

Conflict Disclosure: Yes/No and details

Short Risks Associated with Improper Completion

Confidentiality breach: Liability, reputational harm

Undisclosed conflict: Bias and appeal risk

Incomplete records: Noncompliance with audits

Mismatched identity: Attribution disputes

Missing retention: Regulatory exposure

Unauthorized disclosure: Possible HIPAA violation

Common Errors to Avoid When Preparing the Form

Failing to state reviewer identity format (anonymous vs named) creates ambiguity during appeals and accreditation reviews.
Using inconsistent scoring scales or unlabelled rubrics makes aggregated analysis unreliable and delays editorial decisions.
Omitting conflict-of-interest details or using vague language undermines transparency and may lead to ethical investigations.
Storing completed forms without access controls or audit trails risks unauthorized disclosure and noncompliance with institutional policies.

Step-by-Step: Completing the Academic Peer Review Form

Follow these sequential steps to ensure a complete, auditable review record.

01

Open the form: Confirm manuscript ID and review assignment.
02

Complete rubric: Score each criterion and add comments.
03

Declare conflicts: Answer disclosure questions fully.
04

Sign and submit: Sign, date, and send to editor or system.

Where Completed Forms Go and Who Sees Them

A completed form typically flows from reviewer to editor, then into the journal or institutional records system for retention.

Reviewer to Editor: Direct submission via editorial platform or email.
Editorial Decision: Editor records decision and notes rationale.
Records Storage: Store in secured repository with audit trail.
Access Controls: Limit viewing by role and need-to-know.

Typical Digital Workflow Settings for Online Forms

Configure the online workflow to mirror editorial steps and protect sensitive data.

Field	Configuration
Reviewer Name Field	Optional or required per anonymity policy
Signature Field	eSignature or typed name, timestamped
Confidential Notes	Editor-only visibility setting
Retention Tag	Automatic retention policy label

Technical Considerations for Digital Completion

Use a platform that supports secure forms, role-based access, and an auditable signature record.

Encryption: TLS in transit, AES-256 at rest
Audit Trail: Timestamps, IPs, action logs
Access Control: Role-based permissions

Typical Deadlines and Timing Expectations

Set clear reviewer due dates and editorial decision windows to keep the process predictable and compliant.

Reviewer turnaround:

Commonly 2–4 weeks from assignment

Editorial decision window:

4–8 weeks after receipt of all reviews

Revision resubmission:

Authors given 2–12 weeks depending on scope

Appeal period:

Often 30 days for formal appeals

Retention trigger:

Start retention at decision date

Key Milestones in the Review Lifecycle

A clear milestone sequence helps editors track status and escalate late items appropriately.

01

Submission Received

Editorial office logs manuscript and assigns ID.

02

Review Assigned

Editor assigns reviewers and issues deadlines.

03

Reviews Due

Reviewers submit forms and recommendations.

04

Decision Recorded

Editor enters outcome and stores records.

What a Professional Academic Peer Review Form Should Include

A professional form balances structured scoring with space for narrative feedback and administrative tracking.

Reviewer Identity

Field for affiliation and name or a coded anonymous identifier, plus contact info if follow-up is permitted; clarify anonymity policy.

Evaluation Rubric

Explicit criteria and scale (e.g., originality, methodology, clarity) so scores are comparable and aggregateable across reviewers and submissions.

Qualitative Comments

Open-text fields for strengths, weaknesses, and revision guidance that editors can share with authors while redacting confidential notes.

Recommendation

Discrete selection for accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject, with optional confidence indicator to aid editorial weighting.

Conflict Disclosure

Structured question and free-text details to capture potential conflicts of interest and explain any relationship to authors or funding sources.

Administrative Fields

Timestamps, reviewer completion time, editor notes, and retention tags to support audit, accreditation, and reporting requirements.

eSignature Pricing and Feature Snapshot for Peer Review Workflows

Comparison focuses on starting price, trial availability, bulk send, audit trail, HIPAA support, and envelope caps for common eSignature vendors.

	signNow	DocuSign	Adobe Sign	PandaDoc	HelloSign
Starting Price	$8/user/mo	$15/user/mo	$14/user/mo	$19/user/mo	$15/user/mo
Free Trial	7-day free trial, no credit card	Trial varies	Trial varies	Trial varies	Trial varies
Bulk Send	Yes (available)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Audit Trail	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
HIPAA Compliant	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Envelope Cap	No cap	100 envelopes/user/year	Varies by plan	Varies by plan	Varies by plan

Frequently Asked Questions About the Academic Peer Review Form

Answers to common questions about form validity, anonymity, e-signatures, retention, and conflicts of interest when using the Academic Peer Review Form.

Need help? Contact support

Can reviews be anonymous?
Yes. Many journals use anonymous (blind or double-blind) reviews; configure the form to record an anonymous reviewer token while preserving an internal identity link for editors if necessary.
Is an electronic signature valid?
Yes in most cases. Electronic signatures are legally enforceable under the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §7001) and UETA where adopted, provided intent, consent, attribution, and retention requirements are satisfied.
When is notarization required?
Rarely for peer reviews. Notarization is generally unnecessary unless the form serves a separate legal purpose; verify state-specific rules if notarization is contemplated.
How long must forms be kept?
Retention depends on institutional policy and applicable law; financial or healthcare-related records may require 3 years (IRC §6501(a)) or 6 years for HIPAA (45 CFR §164.530(j)).
What if a conflict is discovered later?
Document the newly disclosed conflict, assess whether it affected the review, and record any corrective actions; retain documentation for audit or appeal.
How to authenticate remote signatures?
Use platform authentication options (email, SMS, KBA, or stronger methods) and preserve audit trails showing signer attribution, time, and IP address for evidentiary support.

be ready to get more

Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users

Sign Now