We asked editors questions about their peer review experiences and policies in relation to the topics 'Reviewers,' 'Editorial Policy,' and 'Authors.' After analyzing their responses to the questions, we’ve come up with a set of recommendations for each of the five essential areas. Click each question to see our recommendations for editors.
REVIEWERS
Do you refer reviewers to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, etc.?
Ask reviewers to refer to the relevant reporting guidelines when evaluating the research and include links to these in the reviewer report form.
Do you explain to peer reviewers how their contribution is used to decide whether to publish the manuscript?
Explain how reviewer contributions are used to facilitate the editorial decision in the initial contact email, reviewer report form and follow-up emails. Editorials can also be helpful in emphasising the importance of reviewer contributions.
Do you give reviewers instructions for how they should submit a sufficiently thorough review?
The importance of a constructive report can be emphasised in the initial invitation email, reviewer report form and reviewer guidelines. Providing this information in presentations, editorials, and newsletters can also be helpful.
Do you direct reviewers to assess the methodology used by authors?
Add specific questions on the reviewer report form to focus attention on the methodology used in the manuscript, ensuring it is sufficiently detailed to allow for replication.
Do you have a process that ensures reviewers are matched appropriately to the manuscript?
A combination of approaches is helpful to ensure appropriate peer reviewers are invited, including individual knowledge, reviewer selection tools, and searches on specialty/areas of expertise.
Do you give peer reviewers a way to contact the editorial office with questions or concerns?
Provide reviewers with contact information for the editorial office in the invitation email, reviewer report form and follow-up emails. Encourage reviewers to contact the editorial office with any questions they may have.
Do you ask reviewers to disclose potential conflicts of interest and to decline to review when conflicts exist?
Ask reviewers about any potential conflicts of interest in the invitiation email. Peer review guidelines should include examples of potential conflicts of interest. Give reviewers the option to decline due to potential conflicts of interest.
Do you explain to reviewers your approach to peer review confidentiality?
Explain your approach to peer review confidentiality in reviewer invitation emails and include links to further information about the peer review process.
Do you screen possible reviewers to avoid inviting people who work with (or recently worked with) the authors?
Check that reviewers who have been recently associated with the author (e.g. recent collaboration or located at the same institution) or who may have any other potential conflicts of interest are not invited to peer review. Editor support and training is helpful to discuss what could constitute a potential conflict of interest.
Do you encourage diversity when selecting reviewers?
Encourage diversity when selecting reviewers, including but not limited to gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, nationality and location. Journals should take a proactive attitude to diversity by encouraging inclusivity and providing training for journal teams.
Do you discourage reviewers from raising unreasonable additional issues at re-review?
Discourage reviewers from raising unreasonable additional issues at re-review by giving reviewers clear guidance about what is expected at each stage. Emphasise that the purpose of the re-review is to ensure requested changes have been made.
Do you ask peer reviewers to acknowledge anyone who helped them complete their review?
Reviewers should check with the journal before inviting another individual to assist them with peer review. All additional contributors should be named and acknowledged to the journal.
Do you attempt to manage the effects of implicit bias in peer review, related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors?
Editors should seek to invite a diverse range of reviewers and should be aware of trends relating to diversity and bias within their journal and commuity. Editoral teams should receive implicit bias training and discuss implicit bias issues in peer review guidelines.
Do you inform reviewers of the first and/or final editorial decision?
Inform reviewers of editorial decisions of manuscripts under review, including the reasons for such a decision.
Do your editors have the opportunity to provide comments to the author in addition to those of the reviewers?
Editors should also provide comments and guidance to the author in addition to those of the reviewers.
Do you provide formal recognition for the voluntary work that peer reviewers do, e.g. Publons record, publishing the names of reviewers?
Reviewers should be recognised for the contribution they make, for example via Publons, certificates, awards, etc.
Do you seek feedback from reviewers about the editorial process, and act on that feedback?
Reviewers should be encouraged to give feedback to the journal on how they found the peer review process.
Do you ask reviewers to let editors know if they are unavailable?
The reviewer invitation email should ask reviewers to respond, even if they are unavailable to review. The invitation email could include a request for alternative reviewer recommendations, if the invited reviewer is unable to assist. Reviewers should also have a means to alert the editorial office if they believe that their review will be delayed. The editorial team should follow up if a reviewer is unresponsive or overdue.
EDITORIAL POLICY
Do you enable readers to raise concerns, and do you act on those concerns when they are raised?
Readers should be encouraged to raise any concerns with information on how to do this provided on the journal website. All concerns raised should be fully investigated within COPE guidelines and all feedback should be followed up on.
Do you have a policy on sharing research data?
Journals should have a transparent policy on their approach to data sharing for their community and the policy should be correctly implemented.
Do you have criteria to help editors make consistent editorial decisions, based on the reliability and completeness of the authors' research?
Editorial criteria for consistent decision making should be discussed regularly. New editors should be given appropriate guidance and/or mentoring on their decision making with additional support from the Editor-in-Chief where necessary. The accept/reject rates of editors could be monitored and discussed regularly to ensure consistency of editorial decisions.
Do you check images for inappropriate manipulation?
Journals should have a transparent policy on their approach to what types of image manipulation are appropriate and acceptable. Where possible, checks on images are advisable.
Do you explain to editors your approach to peer review confidentiality?
Peer review confidentiality should be emphasised in the new editor training and the peer review confidentiality policy guidelines should be provided when editors handle manuscript submissions.
Do you have a preprint policy?
The preprint policy should be included in the author guidelines.
Do you check for overlapping text and potential plagiarism?
Journals should have a transparent policy on their approach to checks for overlapping text. If plagiarism is identified journals should follow COPE guidelines.
Do you have a plan for how to act when you identify a potential research integrity and publishing ethics issue?
Journals should have clear policy and procedures for investigating potential research integrity and publishing ethics issues in accordance with COPE. The policy should be explained to new editors and be included in author and reviewer guidelines.
Do you collect and declare potential conflicts of interest for your editors on the journal website?
Potential conflicts of interest of Editors should be collected and revised on an annual basis. These should be provided on the journal website.
Do your policies describe what to do when an editor has a conflict of interest?
All members of the editorial team should be given guidance on how to handle potential conflicts of interest. If there is a potential conflict of interest for a handling editor, and other member of the editorial team should handle the manuscript. Potential conflicts of interest should be referred to the Editorial office and editors should be prepared to recuse themselves if conflicts of interest arise.
Do you explain to authors, reviewers, editors and readers how manuscripts are evaluated?
The manuscript evaluation process should be explained in author submission guidelines and reviewer invitation emails. Editors should be made aware of the process in training. Editorials detailing the process can help to explain the process to readers, authors and reviewers and can be linked to from author guidelines.
Do you seek feedback from editors about the editorial process, and act on that feedback?
Encourage editors to offer feedback on the editorial process. In regular meetings ask for feedback on editorial processes and editor experiences. Inform editors of changes to practice before implementing any changes. Annual editor surveys are helpfu to review practice.
Do you use automated or artificial intelligence tools to enhance speed and/or quality, and do you describe these on your website?
It can be helpful to use screening tools for manuscript checks - such as those that highlight overlapping text or potential figure manipulation. Tools that can assist with finding potential reviewers are helpful too.
Do you share a goal for timeliness, and advice and support to achieve timeliness, across all members of your journal team?
Turnaround times should be monitored regularly across the journal and for individual editorial teams to ensure timely handling. Setting goals and using automated reminders can assist with timely handling.
Do you conduct regular reviews of your workflow and metrics, and do you act on the findings to make improvements?
Regular reporting and review of workflows and metrics are helpful. Monthly team meetings and broader annual meetings can help to make immediate and long-term workflow improvements.
AUTHORS
Do your author guidelines explain the minimum requirements for completeness of reporting their research (e.g. CONSORT guidelines), and do you ensure that the requirements are always met?
Provide authors with guidelines for different types of article. Ask authors to confirm that they are complying with minimum requirements on reporting guidelines.
Do you ask authors to declare sources of funding, and do you publish in their article a statement regarding these?
Ask authors to declare funding sources at submission and ensure this information is included in the article.
Do you ask authors to declare conflicts of interest, and do you publish in their article a statement regarding these?
Ask authors to declare potential conflicts of interest at submission and ensure this information is included in the article.
Do you ask authors to state the ethical standards required for experiments performed on animals/humans, and do you publish in their article a statement regarding these?
Ask authors to provide details of any ethical approvals, including information of the ethics committee and reference number where appropriate. Ensure that this information is included in the article.
Do you explain your approach to peer review confidentiality to authors?
The journal's approach to respecting the confidentiality of the peer review process should be explained on the journal website and in their author guidelines.
Do you have a journal policy on authorship, and do you ask authors to confirm that all authors agree to the authorship policy?
All journals should have a policy on authorship explained in the author guidelines that allows for transparency around who contributed to the work, and in what capacity, in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Do you ask authors to describe each person’s contributions to their work (e.g. using CRediT) and do you publish in their article a statement regarding these?
Ask authors to explain individual contributions to the research and state this in the article.
Do you copy all authors on emails to acknowledge receipt of their manuscript?
All authors should be copied into emails so that they are aware of the submission and subsequent decisions.
Does your journal enable ORCID for authors?
Ask all authors to provide their ORCID identifiers.
Do you share information with authors on how to appeal against editorial decisions?
Information on how authors can appeal against editorial decisions should be included in the decision email, on the journal website and in the author guidelines.
Do you seek feedback from authors about the editorial process, and act on that feedback?
Journals should seek feedback from authors about their experience of the editorial process via decision emails or surveys, and where appropriate, act on it.
Do you help authors to prepare their manuscripts in ways that enable peer reviewers to make useful comments about the quality of the research?
As well as including checklists for authors in the author guidelines it can be helpful for editorial teams to check that relevant information is provided. Tips on how to write a manuscript suitable for consideration in the journal can be helpful to share.
Do you describe to authors the stages used in peer review such as triage, peer review, and final decision?
Provide authors with information on the potential stages of the peer review process on the journal website and include this information in an email confirming the submission process.
Do you share with authors key editorial metrics such as median time to decisions, and acceptance rates?
Provide authors with information on journal metrics, for example, average decision times and acceptance rates.
Do you inform authors when they might experience a delay?
Alert authors to any potential delays in the handling of their manuscript, where possible writing personalised emails to keep the author fully informed.
To help journal editors reflect on and improve their peer review processes, we have developed a Better Peer Review self-assessment tool. Visit our editor hub for more information.
We value researchers and want to give you insight into our peer review initiative by looking at the editor questions and recommendations from your perspective. The topics cover 'Reviewers,' 'Editorial Policy,' and 'Authors,' and their responses have been categorized into the five essential areas. Click each question to see our recommendations for researchers.
REVIEWERS
Do you refer reviewers to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, etc.?
Researchers should adhere to transparent standards of reporting when describing their research. Checklists are available for a number of study designs and researchers should adhere to these.
Do you explain to peer reviewers how their contribution is used to decide whether to publish the manuscript?
Journals will use peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant subject area to review the manuscript and their comments will inform the editorial decision.
Do you give reviewers instructions for how they should submit a sufficiently thorough review?
Reviewer comments should be constructive and sufficiently detailed to provide researchers with helpful feedback.
Do you direct reviewers to assess the methodology used by authors?
Researchers should provide a full account of the methods used in their manuscript, which is sufficiently detailed to allow for replication.
Do you have a process that ensures reviewers are matched appropriately to the manuscript?
Reviewers with relevant subject expertise should be invited to peer review the manuscript. Researchers may suggest potential reviewers based on subject expertise, if they wish, either in the submission website or in their covering letter.
Do you give peer reviewers a way to contact the editorial office with questions or concerns?
Researchers should be aware that if reviewers have any concerns or questions about the research presented they can raise these with the editorial office.
Do you ask reviewers to disclose potential conflicts of interest and to decline to review when conflicts exist?
Researchers should be aware that if reviewers have any concerns or questions about the research presented they can raise these with the editorial office.
Do you explain to reviewers your approach to peer review confidentiality?
All parties should respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and not reveal any details of a manuscript or communications related to it, during or after the peer review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
Do you screen possible reviewers to avoid inviting people who work with (or recently worked with) the authors?
If there is an opportunity to suggest potential peer reviewers do not suggest researchers who may have a potential conflict of interest (e.g. recent collaboration or work at the same institution).
Do you encourage diversity when selecting reviewers?
If there is an opportunity to suggest potential peer reviewers, encourage diversity by including a broad array of potential reviewers including those in underrepresented groups (e.g. gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, nationality and location).
Do you discourage reviewers from raising unreasonable additional issues at re-review?
Reviewers should not raise unreasonable additional issues at re-review. If you are unclear about any suggestions made seek advice from the editorial office.
Do you ask peer reviewers to acknowledge anyone who helped them complete their review?
Reviewers should not include other individuals to assist them with peer review without first checking with the journal. The journal should be aware of other individuals who have contributed to the review process.
Do you attempt to manage the effects of implicit bias in peer review, related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors?
If there is an opportunity to suggest potential peer reviewers, encourage diversity by including a broad array of potential reviewers including those in underrepresented groups (e.g. gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, nationality and location).
Do you inform reviewers of the first and/or final editorial decision?
Details about the decision on your manuscript will be shared with all reviewers, to help them understand the reasons for the decision.
Do your editors have the opportunity to provide comments to the author in addition to those of the reviewers?
In addition to peer reviewers comments expect to receive editorial guidance on how to improve your manuscript.
Do you provide formal recognition for the voluntary work that peer reviewers do, e.g. Publons record, publishing the names of reviewers?
Researchers may wish to openly acknowledge the contribution that peer reviewers made in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript if appropriate to do so.
Do you seek feedback from reviewers about the editorial process, and act on that feedback?
All parties involved in the review process can give feedback to the journal on their experience.
Do you ask reviewers to let editors know if they are unavailable?
Researchers can expect reviewers to be responsible in anticipating delays to the review process.
EDITORIAL POLICY
Do you enable readers to raise concerns, and do you act on those concerns when they are raised?
Researchers can be assured that journals followed COPE guidelines to investigate any potential issues raised by readers.
Do you have a policy on sharing research data?
Making data available to others is one of the important principles of Open Research. Journals will make their policy on data sharing known to researchers.
Do you have criteria to help editors make consistent editorial decisions, based on the reliability and completeness of the authors' research?
Researchers can expect editorial teams to have a unified policy on how to make consistent decisions.
Do you check images for inappropriate manipulation?
Manipulating images to fabricate results is inappropriate and unethical. The journal will take this situation seriously and follow up with the researcher and their institution.
Do you explain to editors your approach to peer review confidentiality?
All parties should respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and not reveal any details of a manuscript or communications related to it, during or after the peer review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
Do you have a preprint policy?
Sharing preprints is one way of early dissemination of research and is compatible with journal publishing, when the journal's preprint policies are respected.
Do you check for overlapping text and potential plagiarism?
Plagiarising the work of others is inappropriate and unethical. Journals will follow COPE guidelines in handling cases of suspected plagiarism.
Do you have a plan for how to act when you identify a potential research integrity and publishing ethics issue?
Researchers can be assured that journals followed COPE guidelines to investigate any issues raised by readers.
Do you collect and declare potential conflicts of interest for your editors on the journal website?
Conflicts of interest statements from editors give researchers confidence that all potential biases are transparent.
Do your policies describe what to do when an editor has a conflict of interest?
Researchers can be confident that editors will recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest.
Do you explain to authors, reviewers, editors and readers how manuscripts are evaluated?
Researchers should have a clear understanding of how a journal evaluates the submissions it receives via the information shared on the journal's website.
Do you seek feedback from editors about the editorial process, and act on that feedback?
All parties involved in the review process can give feedback to the journal on their experience.
Do you use automated or artificial intelligence tools to enhance speed and/or quality, and do you describe these on your website?
Researchesr should be aware that journals use tools for manuscript checks and should share this information on the journal website.
Do you share a goal for timeliness, and advice and support to achieve timeliness, across all members of your journal team?
Researchers can expect journals to information on average anticipated decision times on the journal website or in email communications or updates.
Do you conduct regular reviews of your workflow and metrics, and do you act on the findings to make improvements?
Researchers can expect journals to regularly review their own processes and take action to alleviate any delays.
AUTHORS
Do your author guidelines explain the minimum requirements for completeness of reporting their research? Do you ensure that the requirements are always met?
Researchers can expect journals to share minimum requirements for completeness of reporting via the information shared on the journal's website.
Do you ask authors to declare sources of funding, and do you publish in their article a statement regarding these?
Researchers should declare sources of funding and include a statement about this in the manuscript.
Do you ask authors to declare conflicts of interest, and do you publish in their article a statement regarding these?
Researchers should provide details of any potential conflicts of interest in their manuscript.
Do you ask authors to state the ethical standards required for experiments performed on animals/humans, and do you publish in their article a statement regarding these?
Researchers should provide details of any ethical approvals in their manuscript, including information of the ethics committee and reference number where appropriate.
Do you explain your approach to peer review confidentiality to authors?
Researchers should respect the confidentiality of the peer review process as explained in the information on the journal's website and not reveal any details of a manuscript or communications related to it, during or after the peer review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
Do you have a journal policy on authorship, and do you ask authors to confirm that all authors agree to the authorship policy?
The journal's policy on authorship should be explained in the information on the journal's website and allow for transparency around who contributed to the work, and in what capacity.
Do you ask authors to describe each person’s contributions to their work (e.g. using CRediT) and do you publish in their article a statement regarding these?
Researchers should explain each author's contribution to the research and state this in their manuscript.
Do you copy all authors on emails to acknowledge receipt of their manuscript?
All authors are copied into communication from a journal so that individual's are aware of the submission and subsequent decisions.
Does your journal enable ORCID for authors?
ORCID is a way of ensuring every researcher has a unique identifier. Researchers can expect journals to require an ORCID upon submission.
Do you share information with authors on how to appeal against editorial decisions?
Authors have a right to be able to appeal against editorial decisions and information on how to do this should be provided on the journal website.
Do you seek feedback from authors about the editorial process, and act on that feedback?
Feedback from researchers about their experience with the peer review process is always welcome.
Do you help authors to prepare their manuscripts in ways that enable peer reviewers to make useful comments about the quality of the research?
It is possible to seek help from a journal on how to prepare your manuscript in the most useful manner, either via advice on relevant information or more formal copyediting.
Do you describe to authors the stages used in peer review such as triage, peer review, and final decision?
Journals should share information on the various stages of peer review process or communicate this in an email confirming the submission of your manuscript.
Do you share with authors key editorial metrics such as median time to decisions, and acceptance rates?
Journals may share information on average times to initial decision and their acceptance rates on the journal website.
Do you inform authors when they might experience a delay?
Researchers should expect journals to alert them to any potential delays in the peer review process.
