What does a reviewer do during peer review

What do reviewers do, and why?

Reviewers evaluate article submissions to journals based on the requirements of that journal, predefined criteria, and the quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented. They provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the editor but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome.

Find out more about the process and what is involved here

Reviewing is a time-intensive process – writing a review report can be almost as much work as writing a manuscript! – but it is very worthwhile for the reviewer as well as for the community.

Reviewers:

• ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.
• uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the journal.
• fulfil a sense of obligation to the community and their own area of research.
• establish relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
• can help prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud and other problems by dint of their familiarity with the subject area.
• reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as reviewer, researchers "repay" the same consideration they receive as authors.

Register your interest to be a reviewer

Typically, reviewers are invited to conduct a review by a journal editor. Editors usually select researchers that are experts in the same subject area as the paper. However, if you think you would be a good referee for a specific journal you can volunteer to review on our Reviewer Hub. On the “Volunteer to review” section of the Reviewer Hub, you can search for the journal(s) of your choosing and click on “Review for journal” to indicate your interest. Please note that you should first complete your reviewer profile.

Access the Reviewer Hub

Other ways to volunteer to review

1. Keep an eye on the journal homepage of your choice for a “volunteer to review” pod.
2. Alternatively, visit the journal homepage and “view full editorial board”, then contact the relevant editor(s) through the site and offer your reviewing services.

Please be aware that the choice of whether or not to choose a particular referee for a paper is entirely at the discretion of the editor and Elsevier plays no part in this decision.

Recognizing reviewers

Elsevier acknowledges reviewers’ invaluable contribution to the progress of science. Elsevier’s reviewer recognition program aims to engage reviewers and reward them for the work they do. The program features several projects and experiments:

Reviewer Hub

The time, energy and expertise that referees contribute to validating the work of their peers is vital to the advancement of the academic community. Elsevier’s Reviewer Hub provides reviewers with a means of showcasing their efforts and receiving credit for their work.

The platform offers reviewers a personalized profile page, documenting their reviewing history and review certificates.

On the Reviewer Hub, reviewers can also claim their 30 days’ complimentary access to Scopus and ScienceDirect.

The platform offers discounts for several Elsevier services, including Elsevier’s WebShop, which offers professional English language editing, translation and illustration services for researchers preparing their articles, and the Elsevier Book Store.

Access the Elsevier Reviewer Hub

Peer review reports as articles

The publishing peer review reports pilot publicly recognized reviewers’ intellectual contribution to accepted articles through the official publication of their reports. Review reports were attributed a separate DOI and published next to the accepted paper on Science Direct. If you are new to reviewing, you are urged to consult a few of these reports to get a feel for how to provide feedback yourself. Review reports are available for the following journals via the “supplementary material” section of articles published between 2015-2018. Participating journals include:

Reviewer feedback programme

We regularly survey reviewers to get a better understanding of their needs and how we’re doing when it comes to meeting them. Findings from the reviewer feedback programme help us to improve the reviewing experience. For example, 90% of reviewers said they would like to be able to see the final decision and other reviewers’ comments on a paper, so we added this functionality to the electronic submission system.

The reviewer feedback programme monitors Elsevier’s performance from the perspective of reviewers on Elsevier journals. We’ll ask you about various aspects of the reviewing system and other aspects of reviewing via an online survey. Areas of interaction and support are measured and reported regularly. Elsevier’s performance is benchmarked against that of other publishers.

If you have been asked to complete our reviewer feedback programme online survey, we strongly recommend you complete it to make sure your voice is heard.

Elsevier Researcher Academy modules

Reviewers’ Update articles

Elsevier.com visitor survey

We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com.
We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit. If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website.

Thanks in advance for your time.

Peer review comes in different flavours: you must therefore check which variant is employed by the journal on which you are working so you’re aware of the respective rules. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community but there is an increasing call towards more transparency around the peer review process. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal’s homepage or contact the editorial office directly.

Single anonymized review

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymizedreview include:

• Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers should not be influenced by the authors.
• Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.
• Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.

Double anonymized review

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

• Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, academic status or previous publication history.
• Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our double-anonymized peer review guidelines.

Triple anonymized review

With triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s). However, it should be noted that:

• the complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable
• as with double anonymized review; there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly divine the author’s identity from their style, subject matter, citation patterns or a number of other methodologies

Open review

Open peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open peer review consist of:

• publication of reviewers’ names on the article page.
• publication of peer review reports alongside the article, whether signed or anonymous.
• publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) together with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article.
• publication of the paper after a quick check and opening a discussion forum to the community who can comment (named or anonymous).

Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism.

For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) as articles alongside the accepted paper on ScienceDirect (example).

Read more about the experiment

More transparent peer review

In general, transparency is the key to trust in peer review. Many Elsevier journals therefore publish the name of the article’s handling editor on the published paper on ScienceDirect. Some journals also provide details about the number of reviewers who reviewed the article before acceptance.

Furthermore, in order to provide updates and feedback to reviewers, most Elsevier journals inform reviewers about the editor’s decision and their peers’ recommendations.