v-sign Mind the GAP - Online training on research integrity
home-icon
  • checkmark Responsible conduct of research
    • checkmark Design and conduct
    • checkmark Design and methodology
    • checkmark Possible flaws in a study design
    • checkmark Preregistration and registered reports
    • checkmark Reproducibility and replicability of research
    • checkmark Statistics in research
    • checkmark Research funding
    • checkmark Research Data Management (RDM)
    • checkmark FAIR data principles for research data
    • checkmark Data Management Plan
    • checkmark Reporting results
    • checkmark Presenting your data
    • checkmark Image processing
    • checkmark Authorship
    • checkmark Author affiliation
    • checkmark Citation and referencing
    • checkmark Open access to publications
    • checkmark The quality of a journal
    • checkmark Peer review
    • checkmark Preprints
    • checkmark Novelty of your work
    • checkmark The value of negative results
  • checkmark Declaration of conflict of interest
  • checkmark Science communication
  • checkmark Research(er) evaluation and assessment
  • checkmark References for module 3 - Good Academic Practices

Peer review

jumping-icon base

Peer review

Peer review is at the core of the traditional publication system. It is designed to assess the quality and validity of new research work, to provide suggestions for further improvement before publication, and to make sure that invalid or low quality articles are not published.

mindthegap

ALLEA Code:

  • Researchers take seriously their commitment and responsibility to the research community through refereeing, reviewing and assessment, and this work is recognized and rewarded by researchers, research institutions, and organisations.
  • Researchers, research institutions, and organisations review and assess submissions for publication, funding, appointment, promotion, or reward in a transparent and justifiable manner, and disclose the use of AI and automated tools. 
  • Reviewers and editors declare any actual or perceived conflicts of interest and, when necessary, withdraw from involvement in discussion and decisions on publication, funding, appointment, promotion, or reward. 
  • Reviewers maintain confidentiality unless there is prior approval for disclosure. 
  • Reviewers and editors respect the rights of authors and applicants, and seek permission to make use of the ideas, data, or interpretations presented. 

Reviewers should be aware of their ethical responsibilities when reviewing studies submitted by their peers. Below you can find some guidelines on how to behave when asked to review a manuscript.

ACCEPTING TO REVIEW:

  • In most cases, review invitations contain the title, the author list and the abstract of the study. Ideally, a reviewer is working in the same discipline as the topic of the paper. Are you the right person to review the manuscript? Consider declining the invitation if the topic is too far outside of your expertise.
  • When in doubt, contact the editor and discuss your concerns. This allows the editor to determine whether you would have the required expertise, and will also allow to invite an additional reviewer to complement the area that is not covered by the current reviewers. It is not because a specific part of the manuscript is outside your expertise, that you cannot give input on the rest of the study.
  • Decline to review if you would have a competing interest that could interfere with the objective evaluation of the manuscript, such as a financial conflict of interest (COI), a close personal relationship or present/recent collaboration with one or more of the authors.
  • Although useful for their own work, reviewers should decline to review work directly related to their own research. The information in the manuscript should not be used to benefit your own work. Finally, please also decline to review papers coming from your direct environment (same department or even same host institution).
  • Upon declining to review, try to make suggestions for alternative reviewers.
  • Check the journal’s policies and guidelines to understand what is expected with regards to the review of manuscripts.

BE RELIABLE

  • Most journals expect their reviewers to provide feedback within a limited time period. Reviewers should not accept to review a paper if they won’t be able to do this within the allotted timeframe. In case unforeseen issues arise, preventing you from reviewing in time, the editor of the journal should be informed.
  • Similarly, decline and accept review invitations in a timely fashion.
  • Editors often rely on the profile of the reviewers as available in the database of the journal to select potential reviewers. Please make sure your profile is up to date by checking your keywords and preferred research topics.
mindthegap

Reviewers are expected to be objective when reviewing their colleagues’ work. Given that peer review is based on trust and provides a certain power to each of the reviewers, this trust and power should not be misused to delay publication of the work of others. Reviewers should not engage in inappropriate interventions such as posing unnecessary or even impossible requirements, providing incorrect feedback or discouraging the authors.

mindthegap

Some tips on how to write a peer review

CONFIDENTIALITY

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents until they are made public upon publication. Depending on the journal, the accompanying reviewer reports might remain confidential, even after publication of the accepted manuscript.
  • Reviewers should contact the editor before involving other parties in the review process (for example a student or a co-worker) and the names of these additional reviewers should be provided in the confidential comments to the editors. This will also assist the editor in identifying potentially interesting new reviewers to be invited for future reviews.
  • Reviewers should never contact the authors directly. All communication should be arranged via the journal.

BE OBJECTIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE WHILE REVIEWING

  • Manuscripts should be judged without bias towards the authors, both in positive and negative sense.
  • The primary role of a reviewer is to advise the journal and to make sure flawed manuscripts are withheld or corrected before being made available for the scientific field.
  • Reviews should be written in clear language and be helpful to both the editors and the author. Be respectful and keep a professional stance when providing comments. Reviewers should not hide behind their anonymity to provide rude reviews and personal criticism. Provide constructive critiques, as this will help the author to focus on the problems in the proposed work, instead of giving the feeling that the comments are the result of a personal vendetta.
  • Report ethical issues such as potentially undisclosed conflicts of interests, the lack of ethical approval or concerns on the experimental protocol in human or animal studies. In addition, suspicions of misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism or other questionable research practices should be reported to and disclosed with the editor.
mindthegap

As journals often allow the submitting author to suggest names for potential peer-reviewers, this option should not be misused by authors to influence the peer review process to the author’s own benefit. Biased peer review can happen if the proposed reviewers are not objective or have a non-declared conflict of interest, for example because they are friends or close collaborators. Fake peer review can occur when researchers submitting a paper for publication, suggest reviewers, but supply contact details for them that actually route requests for review back to the researchers themselves.

mindthegap

Given that it is the journal that invites the reviewer, it is important that journals double check the authenticity of the potential reviewers before involving them into the review process.

mindthegap
Previous page Next page