Peer review of researchproposals and manuscripts Research Code Amsterdam UMC

Reviewing research proposals and manuscripts written by other researchers is an important aspect of a researcher’s work. A reviewer’s opinion on submitted articles and grant applications can have serious consequences for the authors. It is important, therefore, that these appraisals demonstrate expertise, respect and lack of bias.

The principal investigator (PI) can teach young researchers how to review publications
or projects, by including them in the review process. Moreover, various online training tools are available. For example, the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) provides useful information regarding the review process, including guidelines, podcasts and e-learnings; the comprehensive BMJ reviewer training package is helpful; and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network lists a range of peer review training resources. Several aspects need to be considered to ensure that appraisals demonstrate expertise, respect and lack of bias: factual quality, respect and integrity.

Start a review with a concise summary of the research question, design and main findings.
When in doubt about aspects of the work, refrain from judgement or check with experts or the literature.
Any criticism should be factually correct, based on scientific arguments and ideally supported by literature. Provide suggestions for change and make comments as specific as possible.
Researchers should decline a peer review request if they lack sufficient expertise in this field.

Authors deserve positive feedback in addition to criticism. Include strong points of the paper or project in your review comments, as well as limitations or weak points.
The review should be constructive: suggestions for improvement are part of proper scientific conduct.
If there are serious, fundamental shortcomings, refrain from further criticizing details and state clearly that these were not included in the review.
The review process should not be delayed unnecessarily and reviewers should adhere to the timeline proposed by the editor. If this is not feasible, the invitation to review should be declined.

It is inappropriate to talk to outsiders about the content and/or quality of the reviewed work.
Contacting the authors is undesirable. If necessary, this should be done through the organization requesting the review.
Care should be taken when suggesting the inclusion of references to one’s own work. Although perhaps merited, this should never be used to increase one’s own citation rankings.
If any form research misconduct is suspected, the reviewer should immediately inform the editor of the journal or the funding agency.
A researcher should decline a request to review in the event of a conflict of interest. This could arise from any professional, personal, or financial relationship to the applicant. Such conflict also arises from being employed at the same institution as any of the authors, or having recently (i.e. within the past three years) been associated with any of the authors as a mentor, mentee, close collaborator or joint grant holder. For additional information, see the Code for Dealing with Personal Interests of the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website.
Copying ideas from other researchers or taking ownership of other people’s intellectual property (IP) is fraudulent. Peer reviewers of manuscripts or research project proposals have early access to other researchers’ ideas and IP, and therefore must be especially scrupulous in this regard.

Research Code

Peer review of research proposals and manuscripts