Responsible Peer Review: Best Practices for Journal Reviewers

Peer review plays a crucial role in the research publishing process. It comes with a lot of responsibility and voluntary commitment. Peer reviewers are subject matter experts in various fields of study. Journals expect that they thoroughly scrutinize submitted manuscripts and identify gaps that need to be addressed before publication. Besides identifying key gaps in research (or its scientific interpretation), peer reviewers also bear the responsibility of communicating them accurately to the original authors in a comprehensible language that is not susceptible to misinterpretation. Today’s blog highlights key aspects of the peer review process and identifies some of the common mistakes that journal reviewers make while reviewing manuscripts.

The Peer Review Process

After authors submit their manuscript to the target journal, the journal’s in-house editors perform initial screening to ensure compliance with scope, formatting, and policy mandates. They typically conduct some basic quality checks too (e.g., for language). If the manuscript passes this stage, it is assigned to subject-matter experts or “peer reviewers.” Typically, two to three peer reviewers (or sometimes even more) critically evaluate each manuscript for originality, scientific validity, ethical integrity, etc. Journals use peer reviewer feedback to finalize their decision on manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Before You Begin

Peer reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism before initiating the review process. They should refrain from reviewing a manuscript if there is any conflict of interest (e.g., not proceeding with peer review if a journal forwards a manuscript authored by one of your former Ph.D. students or close collaborators). Reviewers must respect timelines and avoid unnecessary delays, while also ensuring that the review is thorough and not rushed. This includes carefully examining all supplementary and supporting data provided with the manuscript. Confidentiality must be maintained throughout the process, and the contents of the manuscript should never be shared, discussed with others, or used for personal gain. Moreover, peer review must always be fair, objective, and unbiased. However, if a reviewer suspects scientific fraud, data manipulation, or plagiarism, they should promptly report these concerns to the journal editor. Lastly, reviewers need to understand that they are not copyeditors; their primary role is scientific evaluation, not language polishing.

Balance Novelty and Inclusivity in Peer Review

As a responsible peer reviewer, you should verify that the manuscript offers novel insights when the target journal prioritizes groundbreaking research (e.g., Nature). Conversely, if the journal (e.g., all Cureus Journals) emphasizes inclusivity and accepts research based on incremental changes, then you should incorporate this consideration into your evaluation. This involves using your subject-matter expertise to determine whether the work introduces fundamental advances or incremental improvements. Reviewers should also carefully examine the existing literature to identify and prevent both intentional and inadvertent duplication.

Examine the Cited Papers

Journal peer reviewers are expected to inspect all published literature cited by the manuscript author(s). They must not only ascertain that the cited work actually exists, but also ensure that recent and relevant literature is appropriately cited. Controversies in the field, if any, must also be presented diligently in the literature review section of the manuscript in an unbiased manner.

Cross-Check for Scientific Validity

As an expert in your field, you must shoulder the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. You must, therefore, ensure that the research presented in the manuscript under consideration is scientifically sound. The following checklist offers a structured approach:

Is the research problem sufficiently clear, and does it address a well-known research gap?
Are the methods employed sufficient to address the research problem?
Is the study design (including but not limited to sample size, controls, etc.) robust?
Is the Materials and Methods section detailed, and can other researchers reproduce the experiments after going through this section?
Does the study show any obvious bias?
Have the authors used rigorous statistical methods?
Are the results (including the figure, tables, and graphs) accurate, clear, and not misleading or ambiguous?
Would you like to make any intelligent recommendations for improving the quality of work?
Will the presented results advance the field of study in some way, and does the importance of the advance match the journal standards?
Do you see any obvious research integrity issues (data fabrication, image manipulation, etc.)?
Do the discussed results lead to the stated study conclusion(s)?

Note: Peer reviewers can typically write to the journal and request additional review if they are not familiar with certain aspects of the presented research. However, if the presented research lies significantly outside their field of expertise, then they must not participate in the peer review process altogether.

Mistakes to Avoid During Peer Review

Peer reviewers can also make mistakes. It is therefore considered a good practice to cross-check each manuscript review for accidental overlooks. The list below serves as a quick reference.

Reviewing a manuscript despite a clear conflict of interest (e.g., manuscripts submitted by a close research collaborator or former Ph.D. student).
Rejecting a manuscript without furnishing any valid reason whatsoever.
Finishing ‘peer review’ within minutes.
Procrastinating peer review unnecessarily for weeks or months.
Contacting the author(s) directly without the journal’s permission.
Skipping the Materials and Methods and/or supplementary material section(s).
Failing to cross-check whether the discussed results lead to the stated study conclusion(s).
Failing to verify cited work.
Ignoring exaggerated conclusions and/or study limitations.
Communicating the findings of peer review using unprofessional language or unfairly criticizing a key competitor.
Overlooking ethical issues (e.g., missing ethics approvals) or research integrity concerns (e.g., data fabrication or image manipulation) accidentally missed by the journal’s in-house editors during initial checks.
Ignoring non-compliance with journal guidelines accidentally overlooked during initial journal checks.
Avoid bias based on race, nationality, institution, language proficiency, etc.

After the Peer Review

After completing the manuscript evaluation, peer reviewers should cross-check their assessments to identify any omissions and ensure accuracy. They must draft their review in the format recommended by the target journal and communicate observations using clear, scientific, and unambiguous language. Additionally, reviewers should provide constructive, evidence-based feedback, maintain confidentiality, and ensure that their comments are consistent with their overall recommendation.

Summary

Peer reviewers add enormous value to the scientific record by facilitating the publication of meaningful research. This blog outlines best practices that researchers must adopt when assuming the responsibility of peer review.

To learn more, we encourage our readers to visit the COPE webpage to download the document highlighting the COPE-recommended ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Key Highlights

Peer review must be conducted with great responsibility.
Subject-matter experts must follow the widely accepted guidelines for peer review.
Peer reviews must make a significant effort to avoid the most common mistakes committed during peer review.

Quiz for the Curious

Dr. Intelligentia is a peer reviewer for The Journal of Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Last week, she accepted a request to review a manuscript forwarded by the journal editor. The manuscript was authored by her immediate collaborator. She plans to begin the review six months later, after returning from a major sabbatical in China. Which of the following is correct in this situation?

(A) Dr. Intelligentia should take the liberty to delay the peer review and prioritize her sabbatical visit.

(B) Dr. Intelligentia should quickly review the manuscript with minimal feedback, given that it is from her close collaborator.

(D) Dr. Intelligentia must decline to participate in the peer review process due to the upcoming sabbatical and the clear conflict of interest.

Answer: (D)