Integrity in peer review: Learn to be effective, positive and ethical with Charlesworth Knowledge

Acting as a peer reviewer is a serious responsibility, your chance to both evaluate (hopefully critically and positively) the research work of others in your field as well as to contribute to the development and overall quality of the scientific literature. Peer review is, and long has been, one of the bulwarks of scientific publishing, the way that papers are ‘policed’ before they appear in journals. [We provide a range of training courses in this area at The Charlesworth Group through our education service, Charlesworth Knowledge, including how to carry out effective, positive and ethical reviews of other people's work.]

We find that, far too often, peer reviewers start their evaluation process of someone else’s work with a negative mindset: ‘How can I find reasons to reject this paper?’, rather than the opposite: ‘How can I help this colleague to improve their work?’ Although it’s human nature to see work in your field other than your own being submitted to top journals, there are strong upsides to being a positive and constructive peer reviewer.

Benefits of being a positive peer reviewer

One of these is developing a relationship with editors at top journals; if you are asked to review a paper for journal x and do a good, constructive job then your will at least be known to the editor for when you submit your next paper. No one appreciates overly negative reviews, especially journal editors.

The question of ethics in peer review is also very important. Over the years, we’ve interacted with reviewers of all kinds; those that are most useful to the journal publishing process are those who are both positive and who provide fair, balanced and impartial assessments of colleagues' work. Too often, reviewers utilise this process as a way to push forward their own work.

When peer review goes 'rogue'

In one recent extreme example, a reviewer requested that a large number of additional citations to their own work to be added to a paper they were assessing. Once flagged to the editorial board, further investigation revealed that, in recent assessments, this reviewer had requested numerous citations be added, the vast majority of which were to either their own papers or papers that both cited them extensively or mentioned them by name in the title.

In addition to requesting substantial additional citations of their own work be added as part of reviews, this individual also worded their comments in such a way as to imply that compliance with this request would influence a decision to accept or reject the work. The editorial board in question, quite rightly, ended up banning this reviewer from performing further work for the journal. Although extreme, this case does highlight one of the issues inherent to the peer review process: unethical behaviour because of the level of power placed in the hands of reviewers.

In conclusion

An understanding of the peer review system, coupled with training on how to write effective reports, can help you navigate these issues successfully, develop good working relationships with journals in your field and enhance your career.

 

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Visit our new Researcher Education Portal that offers articles and webinars covering all aspects of your research to publication journey! And sign up for our newsletter on the Portal to stay updated on all essential researcher knowledge and information!

Register now: Researcher Education Portal

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

 

Share with your colleagues

Related articles

Positive peer review: Some tips and tricks

Best tips for becoming a peer reviewer

Should you perform ghost peer review for someone else, such as an advisor or a senior colleague?

Reviewing basics

Understanding the ‘Five Stages of Peer Review’ as a Peer Reviewer

Open Peer Review: What is it and what are the benefits?

What are the Differences between Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review?