You are here

Guidance

Filter by topic

Filter by resource type

Search results for 'peer review'

Showing 41–60 of 734 results
  • Seminars and webinars

    Artificial intelligence and peer review

    …of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in peer review. This discussion is one of eleven sessions hosted by COPE during Publication Integrity Week 2023.
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Reviewer's identity revealed

    The journal operates a double blind peer review system. Because the journal is small, it does not use a platform for reviews, so reviewers are sent a Word document containing the manuscript and an evaluation form to complete, in which they can leave their comments. However, some reviewers choose to comment directly on the Word document. Most of these comments are anonymised by appearing as…
  • Case

    Should we have had author consent for a randomised controlled trial of a peer review?

    …Conclusion A notice should be added to the Instructions to Authors, to the effect that from time to time their papers may be used in trials of peer review and that this may slightly delay the processing time. In addition, the letter acknowledging receipt of the article might also contain notice (but with a light touch). In both cases, the authors can be given the opportunity to opt out.…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    An enquiry about arbitrating reviewers

    reviewing this peer review option, partly in response to an author’s complaint that arbitrating reviewers bias the peer review process. We would welcome the committee’s feedback on the use of arbitrating reviewers and to have their advice regarding any additional safeguards the journal should put in place when using these reviewers to maintain unbiased peer review. We will use this advice to formulate…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Balancing anonymisation and open science during peer-review

    As an editor of a journal with a double-anonymous peer review system, I often wonder about the right balance between open science practices and anonymisation of the manuscript for the review process. How much anonymisation is enough while being compatible with open science dissemination? In particular, when a manuscript includes information about the protocol registration and raw data,…
  • Case

    Plagiarism in a review article

    A review article was spontaneously submitted and sent out to three peer reviewers, which is standard practice for the journal. One of these reviewers expressed “serious concerns” about the paper. In a telephone conversation, s/he explained that the structure (headings, subheadings, etc), large “chunks of the text,” and most of the references had been plagiarised from a teaching syllabus that…
  • Research

    Editing of reviewer comments: a COPE survey 2020

    …Introduction Peer reviewers are asked to contribute intellectual work to assess and improve scholarly publications. As with all work, the quality and characteristics of peer reviews vary. Editors responsibilities include support not only to the peer reviewers who typically volunteer the time and knowledge but also to the authors, who reasonably should expect non-conflicted,…
  • Case

    A breach of confidentiality?

    We ask our contributors to send us short mini-reviews of interesting articles they have come across in their regular reading. Most of our members also act as peer-reviewers and come across interesting articles as part of the peer-review process, before they are published . If they sent us one of those mini-reviews of an article they have peer-reviewed, and we kept the submission on file…
  • Forum discussion topics

    Editing of reviewer comments

    March 2020 Peer reviewers are asked to contribute intellectual work to assess and improve scholarly publications. As with all work, the quality and characteristics of peer reviews vary. Editors responsibilities include support not only to the peer reviewers who typically volunteer the time and knowledge but also to the authors, who reasonably should expect…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality

    Soon after rejecting a paper—after it underwent peer review but before discussion at the manuscript meeting—the author wrote to tell me that he was asked questions “about the manuscript” at a presentation at a national meeting. The author stated: “A member of the audience addressed questions to me from a copy of the manuscript, and not from the talk I gave. I had to ask him to say nothing…
  • Case

    The reviewer writes comments that he doesn’t want the author to see

    A reviewer has written to complain that a review he sent to us on which he wrote “In confidence—not for transmission to author” was transmitted in part to the author. He had made some rather derogatory remarks which had been edited out by the editor before he had sent back the comments to the author. The review that remained was critical but unremarkable. (1) Is it acceptable for…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Reviewer asks trainee to review manuscript

    A known expert in a certain content area was asked to review a manuscript. He asked if one of his trainees (not a content expert) could review the manuscript instead, with some oversight and as a training exercise. He stated that he would provide the trainee with a full explanation of confidentiality. The section editor replied that it was the particular expertise of the invited reviewer that…
  • Flowcharts

    Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data

    COPE's guidance as a flowchart on what to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data. Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author's ideas or data
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Author requests permission to publish review comments

    reviews and a commentary on the issues raised, prior to submission to a journal with open peer review. The author requested the journal’s consent for the review comments to be made public under CC licence. We declined permission to publish the reviews and explained that the journal operates a confidential single blind review process. Reviewers are informed that their names will not be revealed to…
  • Research

    What instructions and guidance do journals provide to their reviewers to assess submitted manuscripts? : A survey with particular emphasis on the use of reporting guidelines 2010

    The project aims to survey journals’ instructions to reviewers of submitted manuscripts. The study will summarise if and how journals use reporting guidelines in the peer review process, and will explore how effective the editors have found reporting guidelines in improving manuscript quality. The survey will provide an indication of the degree to which reporting guidelines are…
  • Seminars and webinars

    Trends and issues in publication ethics

    …Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Sciences seminar, 2021 The Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CASAD) organised a seminar in September 2021, with COPE invited to present on the trends and issues in publication ethics.  The integrity of peer-reviewed literature is important in retaining public confidence in scholarship. Trust is a key component of…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Is it plagiarism to use text verbatim from a manuscript review?

    …journal B respond to this reviewer?• Is it plagiarism to pull text from a peer review into a manuscript? How should this be cited or credited when the reviewer is blind to the author?• The editor of journal B has often used suggestions from reviewers and not thought of it as plagiarism but rather suggestions from the reviewer to improve the manuscript. Is this correct? …
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Managing an editor’s undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article

    An opinion piece on a polarising political and technological topic was published. A discussion ensued on social media, and shortly after, the publisher received a formal complaint stating that the editor-in-chief of the journal, who had managed the peer review process for the manuscript, had a conflict of interest and should not have made the final acceptance decision. When the publishing team…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Author creates bogus email accounts for proposed reviewers

    The Forum agreed that this was a serious form of misconduct and may even be criminal, as the author was impersonating the reviewers. The advice was to contact the author’s institution and inform them of the situation, explaining the author’s inappropriate behaviour. Other advice was to look at the peer review of previous submissions/publications from this author in case they also involved…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Review of a book written by an editor of a journal

    Two scholars and professional colleagues, A and B, serve as co-editors of a peer-reviewed international journal. Editor A, who recently had a book published, has requested that editor B solicit a review of the book from a scholar in the field. Editor A would like this review to be published in the journal that they edit together. Editor B is concerned that this situation would put him in…

Pages