Page 2 - Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Expectations during the peer-review process

On being approached to review

Peer reviewers should:

t respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.

t declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they are able to
assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise.

t only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed
or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.

t declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial,
intellectual, professional, political or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether
something constitutes a relevant interest.

t follow journals’ policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance
is provided, they should inform the journal if: they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or
will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); they are or have been recent (e.g. within
the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; they have a close personal
relationship with any of the authors.

t review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed
between the two submissions and the journals’ criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.

t ensure suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by personal
considerations or made with the intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive
or negative).

t not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.

t decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
t decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting.

t decline to review if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or
under consideration at another journal.

t decline to review if they have issues with the peer-review model used by a journal (e.g. it uses open
review and releases the reviewers’ names to the authors) that would either affect their review or cause it
to be invalidated because of their inability to comply with the journal’s review policies.

WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG