Review as scholarly contribution
At The Meridian, peer review is a named, citable scholarly contribution, not anonymous gatekeeping. Reviewers help authors make their work better. We select for expertise, constructive judgment, and a mentorship mindset: a The Meridian review should identify strengths, surface blind spots, and suggest concrete improvements.
Reviews are published alongside accepted articles with the reviewer's name (or, by choice, anonymously), receive their own Crossref DOIs, and are permanently linked to reviewers' ORCID records. Reviewers are compensated fairly for their time and expertise, because skilled professional work deserves compensation.
How reviewing actually works
When you review for The Meridian, you're not just gatekeeping, you're co-creating. Your review is a scholarly contribution in its own right.
Our model is designed so that every review makes the paper better, not just accepted or rejected. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and their ability to provide constructive, specific guidance. For early-career authors especially, a The Meridian review functions as expert mentorship: identifying strengths, surfacing blind spots, and suggesting concrete improvements.
You review
We send you a manuscript with structured guidance covering methodology, significance, reproducibility, clarity, and limitations. You provide your expert assessment, what works, what doesn't, and what would make it better.
Automation assists
Your suggestions are classified automatically: routine improvements (grammar, formatting, minor clarifications) are drafted automatically as tracked changes for the author to approve or reject. Substantive scientific suggestions (methodology changes, additional analyses, restructured arguments) are flagged for the author to address directly.
The author decides
Authors review all changes, automated drafts and your direct suggestions, and accept, modify, or decline each one. They remain in full control of their manuscript. You see what they changed in the revision.
Your review is published
After the editorial decision, your signed review is published alongside the article (with your consent). It receives its own Crossref DOI and is permanently linked to your ORCID record.
Credit where credit is due
- Compensation
- Financial compensation for every completed review. We believe reviewing is skilled professional work and should be treated accordingly.
- Co-creator credit
- Your name appears on the published article as a peer reviewer. Your contribution is visible, credited, and permanent.
- Citable DOI
- Your review gets its own DOI via Crossref. It's a standalone scholarly work, citable in your CV, your promotion dossier, your grant applications.
- ORCID integration
- Your review is automatically pushed to your ORCID record as a verified peer review activity.
- A review you can be proud of
- Because your review is published under your name, the incentive is to write a thorough, constructive, genuinely helpful evaluation. This aligns reviewer incentives with author needs, not with anonymous gatekeeping.
Hand-picked, quality-monitored
The Meridian reviewers are selected by the handling editor based on demonstrated expertise, publication record, and track record of constructive peer review. We do not use automated reviewer matching. Every invitation is a personal editorial decision.
Review quality is monitored. Editors assess each completed review for thoroughness, specificity, constructiveness, and fairness. Reviewers who consistently deliver high-quality evaluations are prioritized for future invitations and recognized in our annual acknowledgments.
What we ask, and what we don't
What we ask
- A structured review covering: summary of contributions, methodology assessment, strengths, weaknesses, specific improvement suggestions, and overall recommendation
- Completed within 7 days of accepting the invitation
- Honest, constructive feedback, critical where necessary, collegial always
- Disclosure of any conflicts of interest
What we don't ask
- Unpaid labor
- Anonymous criticism without accountability
- Formatting or copyediting, that's handled automatically
- Accept/reject decisions, that's the editor's responsibility
Your identity, your choice
We encourage all reviewers to sign their reviews. But we understand that junior researchers, those in dependent career positions, or reviewers in small fields may have legitimate reasons for anonymity. Every reviewer can choose:
- Signed review (encouraged)
- Your name is published alongside the article.
- Anonymous review
- Your contribution is published, credited to "Anonymous Reviewer," and still receives a DOI linked to your ORCID (visible only to you until you choose to make it public).
During the initial review phase, all reviews are double-blind. Reviewer identity is revealed only after the editorial decision, and only with your explicit consent.