Skip to Main Content

Research Integrity: Peer Review

Guidance for CSHL Faculty on using the Integrity Manager tool.

Overview

Peer review occurs when researchers review the scientific publications of other researchers to ensure that they meet the standards and quality expected in a scientific discipline. This process of having other experts objectively evaluate the research helps to increase the trust in the scientific findings. Peer review is also used to evaluate federal grant proposals and tenure/promotion decisions. 

Best Practices as a Reviewer

Before Agreeing to be a Reviewer:

  • Honestly determine if you have the expertise to evaluate a publication and can do so without bias.
  • Assess if reviewing the publication would be a conflict of interest. 
  • Responsibly and professionally conducting a peer review takes time, and editors generally give you a deadline to complete the peer review. If you agree to conducting a peer review, you have a responsibility to be both professional and punctual. Determine if you can reasonably conduct a thorough peer review in the time the editor has provided, taking into account other demands on your time and energy. 
  • Review the peer review guidance for the specific publisher or journal requesting the review. 

Reviewing a Manuscript:

  • All information associated with a manuscript is considered confidential & privileged information. You should not use or share the information obtained while conducting peer review, particularly to gain an unfair advantage or to disadvantage others. Some researchers will involve early career scientists or students that they are mentoring in the peer review process; you should get the permission of the journal editor before sharing the publication with mentees. 
  • If it becomes apparent while reviewing the manuscript that you might have a conflict of interest or cannot conduct the review without bias, stop reading the manuscript immediately and notify the editor. 
  • If you find indications of ethics violations or misconduct as you are reviewing the manuscript, notify the editor immediately. It is not your responsibility to investigate these on your own. 

Preparing Feedback & a Recommendation:

  • Follow the guidelines, format, and/or rubric provided by the journal or publisher. 
  • Provide fair, honest, unbiased, and professional feedback of the manuscript. If the journal asks for a recommendation, your comments should match your recommendation. 
  • Edits and suggestions to improve clarity are important. "In addition, be aware of the sensitivities surround language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect" (COPE Guidelines, p. 7). 
  • If additional analyses should be conducted, provide detailed information on what you recommend.
  • Remember, unless you have permission from the editor, you should not involve other people in the preparation of a peer review. 
    • You should also avoid using generative AI (like ChatGPT) to create your peer reviews. Some journals and publishers have developed policies on how AI can be used during the peer review process, but proper standards and guidance from organizations like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) have yet to be established (Mollaki 2024). 

Resources for these guidelines:

  • Shamoo, A.E. & D.B. Resnik. 2022. Responsible Conduct of Research, Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 
  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. 
  • Mollaki, V. (2024). Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? the challenges of using AI tools in peer reviewing and the need to go beyond publishing policies. Research Ethics, 20(2), 239-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231224552.