You are here

Guidance

Filter by topic

Filter by resource type

Search results for 'peer review'

Showing 1–20 of 733 results
  • Flowcharts

    Peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process

    COPE's flowchart on what to do if peer review manipulation is suspected during the peer review process. Peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process
  • Flowcharts

    Peer review manipulation suspected after publication

    COPE's flowchart on what to do if peer review manipulation is suspected after publication. Peer review manipulation suspected after publication
  • Guidelines

    Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

    Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. These guidelines are intended to be applied across…
  • Guidelines

    Editing peer reviews

    Advising editors, publishers, and researchers on expected practices and appropriate circumstances regarding the editing of peer reviews.  The guidelines look at the need for journals to amend peer reviews, and provide insight into situations where this might be an appropriate course of action. Journals should have clear policies on what is acceptable and unacceptable in a reviewer
  • Flowcharts

    How to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process

    COPE's guide on how to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process. It contains details on recognised features or patterns of reviewer activity and best practice recommendations on how to minimise peer review manipulation. How to recognise potential…
  • Seminars and webinars

    J-STAGE Seminar 2021: Peer review

    Dr Trevor Lane, COPE Council member, was invited by the Japan Science and Technology Agency to speak at the First J-STAGE webinar on 28 July 2021 for local editors, academic societies, researchers, and administrators. Titled “Fundamental Principles of Peer Review and Peer Review Ethics”, the presentation introduced COPE to the 200+ attendees and covered topics including peer review models,…
  • Seminars and webinars

    European Seminar 2013: COPE’s new ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

    …Download presentation:COPE’s new ethical guidelines for peer reviewers: background, issues and evolution [PDF 400KB]…
  • Flowcharts

    What to consider when asked to peer review a manuscript

    COPE's guidance on what to consider when you are asked to peer review a manuscript, presented as a flowchart and laying out the steps in the decision process that you might go through to decide whether or not you should accept the request. What to consider when asked…
  • Forum discussion topics

    Peer review models

    …introduction to the COPE Forum discussion on the topic "Peer review models" with COPE Council Member, Patrick Franzen. COPE Forum discussion Peer review sits at the core of scholarly publishing.…
  • Discussion documents

    Who 'owns' peer reviews? September 2017

    This COPE discussion document introduces issues and guidance around the ownership of peer reviews. Questions discussed include: who has ownership of peer review comments; who gets to determine whether a review can be made public, and if so, which parties would be required to consent to its publication. The document also covers whether the sharing of reviewer comments breaches the…
  • Seminars and webinars

    Seminar 2015: Ethical peer review in a changing and challenging scholarly publication world

    …Download presentation: Ethical peer review in a changing and challenging scholarly publication world  [PDF, 998KB]…
  • Seminars and webinars

    COPE webinar 2017: Current issues in peer review

    For Peer Review Week 2017, COPE held a Webinar on the current issues in Peer Review, moderated by Heather Tierney, Managing Editor of Journals and Ethics Policy at the American Chemical Society, and COPE Council Member. The guest speakers were: Tony Ross-Hellauer, Scientific Manager at the OPENAire2020 project, University of Göttinge; Jessica Polka, Director of ASAPbio…
  • Seminars and webinars

    COPE Podcast 2018: Diversity and Inclusivity in Peer Review

    Diversity and inclusivity in peer review. Podcast with Professor Andy Hor, Hong Kong University A discussion in 2018 with Charon Pierson, COPE Secretary and Andy Hor, Vice President of Research at Hong Kong University. An institutional perspective on training early career researchers within a culture of diversity and inclusivity.
  • Research

    An analysis of peer review cases brought to COPE from 1997-2016

    [PDF, 100Kb - click image to download] …
  • Forum discussion topics

    COPE Forum 9 September 2015: Who “owns” peer review?

    Two trends have recently come together within scholarly publication; open review, and the desire to give credit to reviewers. At the convergence are organizations like Publons and Academic Karma who wish to openly acknowledge the work of peer-reviewers by recording, not only the amount, but also, in some circumstances, the content of individuals’ peer-review activity. Academics may view…
  • Seminars and webinars

    China Seminar 2017: Peer review: strengths, limitations and emerging issues

    …Download presentation: "Peer review: strengths, limitations and emerging…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process

    Our journal uses an internally transparent process where throughout the editor or peer review process, authors, editors and reviewers are all aware of the identities of who is involved. Reviewers are also told—when initially solicited to do a peer review—that they will be named on the final article manuscript as a reviewer. Prior to publication, the pre-print version of a text is sent to…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Possible peer review manipulation

    …other co-authors. The journal has a copy of the emails exchanged at the time between the reviewer and the corresponding author, the corresponding author and the co-authors, and the email to the corresponding author by the co-author who wrote the comments. The journal has not yet contacted the corresponding author or the reviewer. The journal believes this is a case of peer review manipulation…
  • Seminars and webinars

    North American Seminar 2016: Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions

    …Download presentation: Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions [PDF, 731Kb] …
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Handling undisclosed peer reviewer conflict

    Some authors from a company recommended a peer reviewer on submitting their manuscript, who was then asked to review the manuscript. This reviewer recommended acceptance without change. One other reviewer recommended major revision (a methodological reviewer not a content expert) and the third reviewer recommended rejection. The editor found it unusual for a review to recommend acceptance…

Pages