Ethical guidelines for Peer-reviewer
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Summary based on COPE)
Peer review ensures the integrity of the scholarly record, depending heavily on trust, responsibility, and ethical conduct. The COPE Ethical Guidelines offer a framework for responsible behavior for reviewers, editors, institutions and journals.
Core ethical principles
Peer reviewers must:
• Accept reviews only when qualified and available to complete in a timely manner
• Maintain confidentiality before, during and after review
• Avoid using information from manuscripts for personal or professional gain
• Declare conflicts of interest or seek journal guidance if uncertain
• Remain objective and fair, without bias based on personal or author characteristics
• Be constructive and respectful in feedback
• Reciprocate fairly by contributing to the review process
• Provide accurate expertise representation and avoid impersonation
Expectations during the review process
Upon invitation
Reviewers should:
• Respond promptly and decline if unqualified or unavailable
• Disclose partial expertise if only part of the manuscript is within their scope
• Declare conflicts of interest, including:
• Shared institutions or collaborations
• Personal relationships
• Competing manuscripts
• Avoid agreeing to review only to gain early access to content.
• Respect journal review models, declining if the review policy conflicts with personal ethics
During review
Reviewers should:
• Inform the journal of any new conflicts of interest
• Read all manuscript materials and instructions thoroughly
• Get permission to involve others in reviewing (e.g. junior researchers)
• Notify journals early if unable to complete the review or if lacking full expertise
• Report ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate submission) confidentially
• Avoid direct contact with authors
• Ensure the review is fair and unbiased
Preparing the review report
Reviewers must:
• Provide honest, fair and evidence-based assessments
• Avoid hostile, personal or libelous comments
• Be clear and specific, citing relevant literature where applicable
• Respect the authors writing style unless clarity or accuracy is impacted
• Show sensitivity to non-native English speakers
• Indicate essential vs. optional revisions
• Avoid recommending unnecessary citations to boost personal visibility
• Follow journal policies on signed vs. anonymous reviews
• If acting as an editor-reviewer, do so transparently, not anonymously
After the review
Reviewers should:
• Maintain confidentiality regarding manuscript content and reviews
• Respond to journal queries and report any new concerns
• Review feedback from other reviewers for learning purposes
• Where possible, review revised submissions they previously reviewed
Use and implementation
These guidelines aim to:
• Assist individual reviewers in ethical decision-making
• Serve as a training tool for institutions and journals
• Provide a standard reference for peer review best practices