Can a reviewer e-sign the template?

Yes. Electronic signatures are legally valid under the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §7001) and UETA where adopted. Ensure the signer demonstrates intent, consents to electronic records, that attribution is recorded, and the record is retained in a reproducible format.

Do I need a notarized signature?

Not normally. Peer review forms rarely require notarization. Only use notarization if institutional policy or a specific sponsor requires it; remote online notarization (RON) rules differ by state.

How should I report a conflict of interest?

Disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships in the COI field before evaluating. Late disclosures should be reported to the editor immediately and may result in reassignment.

What if I submitted the wrong file or ID?

Contact the editorial office promptly. Corrections to the manuscript ID or uploaded file should be logged, and a revised signed record may be required to preserve auditability.

Are peer reviews confidential?

Confidentiality depends on the journal and review model. Many reviews are confidential between reviewers and editors. If reviews include PHI, follow HIPAA rules and use a compliant workflow and BAA.

How long should reviews be retained?

Retention depends on institutional and sponsor policies; common practice is seven years for archival records. If PHI is involved, follow HIPAA retention of six years from creation or last effective date (45 CFR §164.530(j)).

Electronic Signature
Templates
Miscellaneous
Academic Peer Review Template

Academic Peer Review Template

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

ACADEMIC PEER REVIEW TEMPLATE

Reviewer Name: Affiliation:

Commissioning Party Name: Contact Email:

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Commissioning Party has submitted the manuscript titled "" (Manuscript ID: ) for peer review; and

WHEREAS, the Reviewer represents having expertise in the relevant field and has agreed to perform a confidential evaluation of the manuscript in accordance with the terms set forth herein; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to document the scope of the review, deliverables, confidentiality obligations, and other administrative terms applicable to the review engagement.

SCOPE OF WORK

The Reviewer shall perform an independent, written peer review of the manuscript, addressing the following elements and any additional items required by the Commissioning Party. The review shall be thorough, constructive, and suitable for forwarding to the author(s) in edited form.

Required Deliverables Specific Instructions

REVIEW TIMELINE

Request Date: Due Date for Submission of Review:

PAYMENT TERMS

Honorarium Amount (if applicable):

Payment Schedule

Late Payment: A late fee of may be charged on undisputed amounts where payment is not made within the agreed terms.

TERM AND TERMINATION

Engagement Start Date: Engagement End Date:

Either party may terminate this engagement for material breach upon written notice. Termination for convenience requires written notice of days.

CONFIDENTIALITY

The Reviewer acknowledges that the manuscript, associated data, and any author correspondence are confidential and proprietary. The Reviewer shall not disclose, copy, distribute, or otherwise use confidential materials except as necessary to perform the review and shall not retain copies after returning the review to the Commissioning Party. This obligation survives termination of this Agreement.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

I hereby disclose any current or recent relationships that might reasonably be perceived to influence my review. I confirm:

No known conflicts of interest exist in relation to this manuscript.

If conflicts exist, describe:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Rate the manuscript on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Provide brief justification for each rating.

Originality (1-5) Methodological Rigor (1-5) Clarity of Presentation (1-5) Significance of Findings (1-5) Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

RECOMMENDATION

Please indicate your overall recommendation (select one). If multiple boxes are selected, indicate primary recommendation in the accompanying comments.

Accept as is

Minor revision required

Major revision required

Reject

Detailed Comments to the Editor Comments and Suggested Edits for Authors (may be edited by Commissioning Party)

CERTIFICATIONS

By signing below, the Reviewer certifies that the review is their independent and original work, that they have disclosed all potential conflicts of interest, and that they will not use or disclose confidential information beyond the purposes of this review. The Commissioning Party certifies it has the authority to commission this review and will handle reviewer comments in accordance with its editorial policies.

GOVERNING LAW

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

ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior understandings, negotiations, and communications, whether written or oral, relating to the peer review engagement.

Reviewer (Printed Name):

By:

Date:

Commissioning Party (Printed Name):

By:

Date:

What the Academic Peer Review Template Is

The Academic Peer Review Template is a standardized form designed to guide reviewers through a structured evaluation of manuscripts, grant proposals, or conference submissions. It captures manuscript metadata, objective scoring across core criteria, narrative comments for authors and editors, and conflict-of-interest declarations. The template supports blind or open review workflows, preserves an auditable record of reviewer actions, and is adaptable for PDF, DOCX, or online form use in editorial management systems and institutional review processes.

Why a Consistent Peer Review Template Matters

A standard template improves comparability across reviewers, reduces omissions, and creates a clear record for editorial decisions. It streamlines editorial intake, shortens review cycles, and supports reproducible decision-making while preserving confidentiality and attribution controls.

Who Typically Completes This Template

Institutions, funding bodies, and ethics committees also use completed templates as part of compliance, audit, or promotion review packages.

External peer reviewers provide independent, manuscript-focused evaluation under journal guidelines.
Associate editors synthesize reviews and recommend editorial outcomes based on aggregated scores.
Managing editors track timelines, confirm conflicts are declared, and archive completed reviews.

Authority and Typical Signers

Reviewer — Faculty

A subject-matter expert invited by the journal or program to evaluate a submission. The reviewer provides scores, narrative critique, and a conflict-of-interest statement. Their signed review documents attribution, intent to sign, and the time stamp for audit purposes.

Editor — Editorial Office

An editor or managing editor who confirms reviewer assignment, records editorial decisions, and signs or certifies the reviewer record where required by institutional policy or grant administration rules.

Essential Elements Included in the Template

A professional peer review template combines structured rating scales with free-text sections and administrative metadata to make reviews consistent, auditable, and easy to integrate with editorial systems.

Manuscript Details

Fields for title, manuscript ID, submission type, and keywords. These values tie the review to the correct record and support automated routing in editorial systems.

Evaluation Criteria

Predefined rating categories (originality, methodology, significance, clarity) with numeric scales and optional subcriteria to standardize scoring across reviewers.

Narrative Feedback

Separate sections for confidential comments to the editor and detailed feedback for authors, supporting constructive revisions and editorial assessment.

Recommendation Summary

Clear, predefined recommendation options (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) with space for succinct justification and conditional routing rules.

Conflict of Interest

A mandatory disclosure field and checkbox to record any competing interests, financial ties, or prior collaborations relevant to the manuscript.

Administrative Data

Reviewer name or anonymous ID, affiliation, review date, version number, and signature block or eSignature metadata for provenance and retention.

Required Template Fields at a Glance

Manuscript Title: Exact title as submitted

Manuscript ID: Journal-assigned identifier

Reviewer Name: Legal name or anonymized ID

Review Date: MM/DD/YYYY format

Recommendation: Accept/Revise/Reject option

COI Declaration: Yes/No plus details if Yes

Step-by-Step: Completing the Peer Review Template

Follow these sequential steps to complete and submit a compliant, auditable review using the template.

01

Open Assignment: Confirm manuscript ID and version before reading.
02

Declare Conflicts: Complete the COI field before evaluating content.
03

Assess Criteria: Use numeric scales and justify scores in comments.
04

Sign and Submit: Apply your signature or eSignature and record the date.

How to Configure the Template for Online Use

Settings below show common configuration options for integrating the template into editorial platforms or eSign workflows.

Field	Configuration
Reviewer ID Field	Auto-fill from editorial system
Anonymity Mode	Toggle blind vs open review
Required Fields	Make COI and Recommendation mandatory
Signature Type	Allow typed, drawn, or PKI-based signatures

Typical Submission and Routing Flow

A clear routing workflow reduces delays and ensures each party receives the correct view (editor vs author vs reviewer).

Upload Manuscript: Editorial office uploads files to system.
Assign Reviewer: Editor assigns template to reviewer.
Review Completed: Reviewer completes form and signs.
Editor Decision: Editor synthesizes reviews and issues outcome.

Digital Signing and Integration Considerations

Ensure chosen providers meet applicable privacy and compliance requirements for your institution before enabling eSignature or archival workflows.

File Formats: PDF and DOCX supported
Authentication: Email, SMS, or stronger methods
Integrations: Connect to LMS and manuscript systems

Common Timelines and Deadlines for Reviews

Typical schedules vary by journal; set clear expectations in the assignment to avoid late reviews and editorial delays.

Initial Review Period:

14–28 days is standard for first-round reviews

Revision Window:

Authors typically receive 2–8 weeks to revise

Reviewer Reminder Interval:

Send reminders at 7 and 3 days before due date

Final Decision Turnaround:

4–12 weeks depending on review rounds

Archive Retention Start:

Starts on final decision date

Key Milestones from Assignment to Decision

Sequential milestones help teams track progress and escalate when deadlines slip.

01

Manuscript Submission

Editor confirms metadata and assigns ID.

02

Reviewer Assignment

Invitation sent and reviewer accepts or declines.

03

Review Due Date

Reviewer completes form and signs.

04

Editorial Decision

Editor issues outcome and notifies authors.

Common Mistakes When Preparing or Submitting Reviews

Failing to declare conflicts of interest or late disclosure undermines editorial integrity and can trigger reassignment.
Using free-text scores without justification produces inconsistent editorial interpretation and slows decisions.
Uploading the wrong manuscript version or mis-typing the manuscript ID breaks the link between review and submission.
Relying on handwritten signatures or scanned images without an audit trail can complicate provenance and recordkeeping.

Risks and Consequences of an Incorrect Review Record

Breach of Confidentiality: May lead to institutional investigation

Publication Delay: Incomplete reviews slow editorial decisions

Reviewer Misattribution: Errors can affect academic credit

Record Invalidity: Missing signature metadata may void the record

Ethics Noncompliance: Undisclosed COI harms trust

Data Retention Risk: Insufficient retention may breach policy

Two Practical Use Cases

Real-world scenarios illustrate how the template supports editorial workflows while preserving auditability and compliance.

University Journal Editorial Office

An editorial office assigns the template to three reviewers to standardize scoring

Reviewers use numeric scales and confidential comments to justify recommendations
Completed, signed reviews feed into the decision letter and are archived for seven years under institutional policy.

Clinical Research IRB Peer Review

An IRB uses the template to capture methodologic critique and consent concerns

Reviewers declare conflicts and note PHI handling steps
Reviews are stored in a HIPAA-compliant system with a BAA and retained for six years.

eSignature Vendor Comparison for Peer Review Workflows

Comparison of common eSignature vendors and capabilities relevant to academic peer review templates. signNow appears first as required.

	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	Varies by vendor	Varies by vendor	Varies by vendor	Varies by vendor
Bulk Send	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Audit Trail	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Envelope Cap	No cap	100 envelopes/user/year	Varies by plan	Varies by plan	Varies by plan

Frequently Asked Questions About the Template and eSigning

Answers to common questions about completing, signing, and storing peer review templates, including legal validity and privacy considerations.

Need help? Contact support

Can a reviewer e-sign the template?
Yes. Electronic signatures are legally valid under the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §7001) and UETA where adopted. Ensure the signer demonstrates intent, consents to electronic records, that attribution is recorded, and the record is retained in a reproducible format.
Do I need a notarized signature?
Not normally. Peer review forms rarely require notarization. Only use notarization if institutional policy or a specific sponsor requires it; remote online notarization (RON) rules differ by state.
How should I report a conflict of interest?
Disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships in the COI field before evaluating. Late disclosures should be reported to the editor immediately and may result in reassignment.
What if I submitted the wrong file or ID?
Contact the editorial office promptly. Corrections to the manuscript ID or uploaded file should be logged, and a revised signed record may be required to preserve auditability.
Are peer reviews confidential?
Confidentiality depends on the journal and review model. Many reviews are confidential between reviewers and editors. If reviews include PHI, follow HIPAA rules and use a compliant workflow and BAA.
How long should reviews be retained?
Retention depends on institutional and sponsor policies; common practice is seven years for archival records. If PHI is involved, follow HIPAA retention of six years from creation or last effective date (45 CFR §164.530(j)).

be ready to get more

Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users

Sign Now