• A collaborative process that allows independent experts to evaluate and comment on manuscript submissions

• Peer review gives authors feedback to improve their work & allows the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication

• Single-blind: reviewer’s name is not disclosed to the author(s)

• Double-blind: neither identity of the reviewers and authors are disclosed

• Open: both the author and reviewer names are disclosed

• Post-publication open: editor mediates readers’ and reviewers’ comments after publication

• Improves the quality of articles that are published

• Provides an assessment of the science in the literature

• Assists the editorial decision-making process

• Screens for unethical practice

• Keep abreast of latest research

• Improve your own writing

• Boost your career

Generally people with

• many years of research experience in a subject area

• in-depth study in a specific area during grad school

• practical experience in the field

• recently published articles on a related subject

• Contact the editor

• Ask a senior colleague to recommend you

• Look out for calls for reviewers

• Find a mentor

• Be visible on researcher networking sites (e.g., your own website, ResearchGate, Google Scholar)

• Write a paper!

Things to consider:

• Does the subject area of the article match my expertise?

• Do I have time to do the review within the time frame requested (2-3 weeks)?

• Do I have any conflicts of interest?

• Do I actually want to review this article?

• Can I commit the necessary time (it’s OK to ask for an extension)?

• If declining an invitation, do so promptly

• If possible, suggest alternate reviewers

• Always treat the paper with the utmost confidentiality

• Always be professional, courteous & collegial

• Take an objective, independent approach to the work

• Be attentive & critical

• Provide evidence for any statements you make

• Use simple language

• Never contact the authors directly

• You must not take ideas presented in articles you review & pass them as your own

• You must not disclose any data presented in the article

• However, you can ask a colleague for advice as long as necessary details remain confidential (e.g., author names)

We all have unconscious biases that affect our ability to conduct reviews

• gender bias: articles by authors of either sex are subjected to different standards of review

• geographical bias: authors’ country of origin will influence the manner in which their work is assessed

• seniority bias: articles by authors at different stages in their careers will be subject to more or less favorable review

• confirmation bias: articles reporting controversial or new ideas will be less favorably reviewed than articles that do not challenge conventional wisdom

• Do not submit a paper to various journals concurrently

• Do not submit a paper with overlapping material, especially results, to different journals

• Recall that authorship is usually granted to those who have substantially contributed to the work presented in an article

• Unjustified authorship: honorary or guest authorship assigned to people who have not made substantial contribution to the conception, design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation

• Ghost authorship: people who have contributed to authorship of the paper are omitted from the list of authors

Unfortunately, not all data are what they appear

• Fabricated data are made up rather than the result of actual measurements

• Falsified data arise from measurements that have been unjustifiably altered in order to yield more impressive/convenient results

• Theft of data someone else’s data without their consent

• Animal welfare practices need to be followed when carrying out research

• Reviewers: Colleagues or friends of authors who cannot provide an impartial review

• Authors: Funding or association with an organization may raise questions about motivation and findings