How to become a peer reviewer
Last updated:
Peer review depends on researchers who give their time to read and judge other people's work. If you have published, you may already be qualified to help. This guide explains what is expected of a reviewer, using the COPE guidelines, and how recognition works.
Who can review
WAME's recommendations say reviewers should be subject experts chosen for their objectivity and knowledge, and that anyone with a major competing interest in the work, for example an employee of a company whose product is tested, should not review the article. COPE asks reviewers to accept an invitation only if they have the expertise to assess the manuscript and can judge it impartially, and to say so if they have gaps.
COPE also lists situations where you should decline: if you work at the same institution as an author, if you have recently been a mentor, mentee, close collaborator or joint grant holder (generally within the past three years), or if the manuscript closely overlaps with your own work in preparation or under review elsewhere. Do not accept merely to read the manuscript.
Journals set their own rules about who can be invited, such as publication record or academic rank. Check the journal's reviewer page.
Signing up with the journal
- Make sure your publications, ORCID iD and institutional affiliation are accurate and public. COPE requires reviewers to give accurate personal and professional details; impersonating another person during review is described as serious misconduct.
- Find the journal's reviewer page or write to the editorial office. Describe your field, your key publications and your areas of expertise, using precise terms.
- Tell the office your conflicts of interest, such as close colleagues you cannot assess.
- Respond to each invitation promptly, even to decline. COPE asks reviewers to agree only to deadlines they can meet, to say early if circumstances change, and to suggest alternative reviewers based on expertise alone.
Writing your first review
COPE's checklist for reviewers is practical and clear:
- Read the manuscript, supplementary files and any required statements thoroughly, and ask the journal about anything unclear.
- Keep the review confidential. Do not use information from the review to benefit yourself or others, and do not share the manuscript after review without permission from both the author and the journal.
- Do not contact the authors directly without the journal's permission. Do not involve trainees or colleagues without the journal's permission, and name anyone who helped.
- Report suspected ethics problems, such as plagiarism or data problems, to the editor in confidence; do not investigate yourself.
- Be objective, specific and constructive, support your points with evidence and references, and stay professional. Avoid hostile or derogatory remarks.
- Respect the authors' work, and do not rewrite it in your own style if it is sound. Be considerate of authors writing in a non-native language.
- Separate essential requests for additional analyses from optional ones.
- Keep your recommendation consistent with your report, and do not ask authors to cite your own work just to boost citations.
- Write the report yourself unless the journal allows otherwise, and meet your deadline.
WAME adds that a good review assesses design, methods, interpretation, ethical concerns and clarity of the manuscript, and offers constructive suggestions.
Most journals provide review forms. Read the journal's form before you start. A useful order is: a two- or three-sentence summary in your own words, major concerns, minor points, and a clear recommendation to the editor.
Recognition for reviewers
Springer Nature explains that its reviewers can opt in, when submitting a review, to have it added to their ORCID record after the manuscript's final decision. Only the year and the journal or book series title appear, and multiple revisions of one manuscript appear as a single entry. For older reviews, they describe registering with Web of Science (formerly Publons) so it can update the ORCID record. Other publishers offer their own certificates and acknowledgement. Check what the journal you review for offers; do not assume any.
Reviewing also helps you learn how editors think and how to write your own papers. COPE encourages reviewers to take advantage of training and mentoring opportunities, and to read other reviewers' comments where the journal provides them.