Skip to main content

Table 1 Role-related statements (‘roles’ refer to the overarching nature of peer reviewers’ function. The statements are ranked by numerical frequency. Each statement is linked back to the specific papers in the Additional files 2, 3, 4 and 5)

From: A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals

 

Itema

 

#b

Peer reviewers should be…

   

 Proficient experts in their field

1

Be expert in the subject area/matter/field and/or be familiar with/trained in research methods and statistics

70

2

Be actively involved in research and have experience of conducting research and publishing scientific papers

15

3

Be familiar with reporting guidelines

5

 Dutiful/altruistic towards the scientific community

4

Consider peer reviewing to be a responsibility, duty and obligation to the field and to the scientific community

26

5

Consider the act of peer reviewing as an honour and a privilege

8

6

Indicate willingness to re-review the manuscript

7

7

Be aware of one’s role, responsibilities and rights as a peer reviewer

4

8

Perform reviewing task altruistically/gratis

2

9

End one’s appointment as reviewer to create opportunity for others

1

10

Act regularly as peer reviewer

1

 Familiar with journal

11

Be familiar with journal’s mission, review process, review criteria, guidelines (i.e. both author and reviewer guidelines) and forms prior to starting the review

39

12

Guide the substance and direction of a journal

1

 Unbiased and ethical professionals

13

Declare/avoid potential or actual conflict of interest

66

14

Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript, avoiding disclosure/discussion with others

52

15

Be fair: evaluate manuscript in a fair manner

39

16

Be objective: objectively judge all aspects of the manuscript

36

17

Be unbiased in their assessment: peer reviewers should have an unbiased attitude towards an author’s gender, previous work, institution and nationality

32

18

Review ethically: they should not use the obtained information in any way

17

19

Be honest/frank

13

20

Maintain integrity of the peer review process and not communicate with authors during the review process

12

21

Inform editor if a colleague will help or has helped with review

11

22

Review ethically: they should not copy and plagiarise

6

23

Be aware of their own biases: peer reviewers should recognise their potential biases and hold them in check

6

24

Upon completing the review, manuscript, illustrations and tables should be destroyed

5

25

Review ethically: in general terms, peer reviewers are expected to undertake task in an ethical and diligent manner

4

26

Be familiar with fundamental issues of publication integrity

4

27

Decline review request if these cannot be performed in an unbiased manner

4

28

Review ethically: they should not ask for their own articles to be cited

4

29

Review ethically: they should not delay publications purposefully

4

30

Be transparent and perform review in a transparent manner

2

 Self-critical professionals

31

Prior to accepting review request, determine whether the manuscript is within one’s area of expertise (only review manuscripts in one’s own field of expertise)

35

32

Be aware of own limitations: recognise and communicate them to the editors. If needed, recommend review by an expert (e.g. statistician)

22

33

Be innovative and open to new ideas

13

34

Peer reviewers should consider reviewing as a learning exercise and evaluate one’s own performance as a reviewer, i.e. read other peer reviewers’ reviews and thereby improve their own understanding of the topic and/or decision reached

8

 Reliable professionals

35

Timeliness: meet journal deadline

81

36

Consider one’s time availability prior to accepting review request

36

37

Be willing to devote sufficient time and attention to the review task

23

38

Respond to review requests in a timely manner

21

39

Inform the editor as soon as possible if proposed deadline to be exceeded

12

40

Immediately communicate to journal when cannot perform review

9

41

Suggest other reviewers if unable to review

7

 Skilled critics

42

Provide constructive criticism

87

43

Improve manuscript

84

44

Be thorough/comprehensive/detailed/accurate

35

45

Be critical/sceptical: evaluate a manuscript in a critical manner

27

46

Be specific: provide authors with specific guidance on how to improve their manuscript

26

47

Support comments with evidence: reviewers should document their comments and substantiate their points by referring to appropriate references and resources

20

48

Be clear: clearly explain concerns

14

49

Provide relevant comments: offer meaningful and reasonable comments that can be addressed

12

50

Be consistent with comments to authors and editors: comments provided to the authors should be in line with confidential comments provided to editor in order to facilitate editors’ decision-making, ensure consistency and avoid miscommunication.

11

51

Be systematic and methodological

11

52

Be balanced: provide a balanced critique

9

53

Be logical: provide logical arguments

5

54

Be concise/incisive

5

55

Evaluate manuscripts in a consistent manner

4

56

Have intuitive capacity to detect faults and recognise quality

2

 Respectful communicators

57

Be polite/courteous/respectful in the communication with authors

41

58

‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’: treat others as we expect to be treated

22

59

Be positive: peer reviews should be written in a positive attitude and offer praise for work well done

13

60

Be nice/kind/considerate

12

61

Be helpful: provide helpful comments

12

62

Be collegial: treat each manuscript as if it had been written by a valued colleague

8

 Gatekeepers

63

Maintain and improve manuscript quality and scientific rigour

15

64

Weed out unsuitable manuscripts that are not scientifically valid

11

 Educators

65

Educate and mentor authors: provide a learning opportunity

15

66

Encourage authors: peer reviewers should encourage authors to improve manuscript

11

 Advocates for author/editor/reader

67

Be an advocate for the editor

6

68

Be an advocate for the author

6

69

Be an advocate to readers

2

 Advisors to editors

70

Advise editors on the merits of manuscripts

40

71

Provide confidential comments to editor

32

Peer reviewers should not…

72

Be decision makers: they should acknowledge that the final decision on the publication of a manuscript rests with the editor

22

73

Be copy editors (i.e. offer editorial comments about grammar and spelling)

21

74

Ask for unreasonable or pivotal change

11

75

Be overtly critical or too detailed: peer reviewers should not be generous and should not ‘nit-pick’ or overwhelm the authors

9

76

Add additional requests in subsequent reviews that are not related to the original revisions

2

  1. aCorresponds to the ‘Role item(s)’ columns in the tables related to roles in the additional files
  2. bNumber of extracted roles statements across all data sources in the scoping review