index1 coreview_policy
1 If you wish to involve aspecially qualified colleague in the review (or perhaps want to guide a junior colleague in learninghow to review), you must contact the editorial office and ask for permission ahead of time.
2 Can I have my student write my review? No, your review should be written by you. Do not have your students write your reviews for AMR. Our authors expect, and deserve, high quality reviews from the leading scholars in the field. We understand that doctoral students need to learn how to write reviews, but there are other methods that can be used. For example, you could share your own manuscripts and the reviews you received as an author with your students to facilitate their learning.
3 To treat the manuscript as confidential. The editor must be informed if the referee consults a colleague about the manuscript.
4 Sometimes a reviewer will want to involve junior researchers in the review of an article as it can be good practice and experience for that person. However, you should ensure that you obtain permission from the journal editor prior to accepting the invitation to review. The names of everyone involved in doing the review should be submitted to the editor so that the journal records accurately reflect the review process that took place. Full guidelines for peer reviewers can be found on the Committee on Publication Ethics website here.
5 Annals of Internal Medicine expects reviewers to handle manuscripts in a confidential manner. Manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers (like members of the editorial staff) must not publicly discuss the authors’ work or appropriate their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers should not keep copies of reviewed manuscripts in their personal files and are prohibited from sharing copies of the manuscript with others, except with the permission of the editor. Reviewers should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews.
6 Unpublished manuscripts are confidential and you must not disclose their contents to anyone except a professional colleague whose input you request as part of your review process. If you do choose to discuss the manuscript and/or your review with a professional colleague you are responsible for ensuring that they are made fully aware of the confidential nature of the discussion and that they must not disclose any information about the manuscript until the article is published. The identity of any co-reviewer and any potential conflicting or competing interests they may have must be disclosed when submitting your review.
7 Unless otherwise specified, OUP expects editors and reviewers to handle all submissions in confidence. If a reviewer wishes to delegate the review or seek the opinion of a colleague on a specific aspect of the paper, they are expected to clear this with the editor in the first instance.
8 If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.
9 Please note that all information regarding a submitted paper should be kept confidential.
10 “In some instances, reviewers may feel that it would be helpful to obtain additional advice from a colleague. … In such cases, we ask that the reviewer contact the editor in advance to ensure that the editor has the opportunity to take additional information into account before permitting communications that have the potential to violate confidentiality. …Reviewers can collaborate with trainees (graduate students and post-docs) in the evaluation of manuscripts… However, we ask that reviewers keep the number of collaborators to a minimum and include the identities of all the individuals involved in the “comments to the editors” component of their review. Regardless, the person originally invited to review the manuscript is ultimately responsible for maintaining confidentiality and for the content and accuracy of the report.”
11 In some instances, reviewers may feel that it would be helpful to obtain additional advice from a colleague. In such cases, we ask that the reviewer contact the editor in advance to ensure that the editor has the opportunity to take additional information into account before permitting communications that have the potential to violate confidentiality. It is not appropriate to discuss unpublished manuscripts at laboratory meetings or journal clubs. Reviewers can collaborate with trainees (graduate students and post-docs) in the evaluation of manuscripts, and we appreciate that such collaboration functions as an important training exercise. However, we ask that reviewers keep the number of collaborators to a minimum and include the identities of all the individuals involved in the “comments to the editors” component of their review. Regardless, the person originally invited to review the manuscript is ultimately responsible for maintaining confidentiality and for the content and accuracy of the report. We encourage referees to inform collaborating reviewers about appropriate guidelines and ethics for peer review, as outlined in this document.
12 The manuscript (or its existence) should not be shown to, disclosed to, or discussed with others, except in special cases, where specific scientific advice may be sought; in that event the editor must be informed and the identities of those consulted disclosed.
13 Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal editors.
14 Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal editors.
15 Please note also that if you agree to review this manuscript, the manuscript and its’ contents must be kept confidential. If you wish to have another expert co-review the manuscript with you, you must first obtain permission from the journal office.
16 Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. To protect the authors’ work as well as your anonymity, communications regarding the manuscript and its parts, including the abstract, may not be shared for any reason. Further, according to COPE guidelines, reviewers must refrain from using information obtained from the peer review process in any way and should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the journal.
17 Reviewers provide comments for the editor and for the authors. The journal expects reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential communications and not to use the content for their own purposes or make copies of the manuscripts. Reviewers are also expected to declare to the editor any possible conflicts of interest.
18 All reviewers are expected to uphold AGU’s ethical guidelines and to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors. Reviewers are expected to keep manuscripts confidential.
19 If you do choose to discuss the manuscript and/or your review with a professional colleague whose input you request as part of your review process, you are responsible for ensuring that they are made fully aware of the confidential nature of the discussion and that they must not disclose any information about the manuscript until the article is published. The identity of any co-reviewer and any potential conflicting or competing interests they may have must be disclosed when submitting your review.
20 These restrictions might be relaxed in the event that you wish to incorporate the comments of others in your review comments. However, other reviewers must agree to abide by the restrictions described above. If you do wish to enlist the aid of others in reviewing this paper, we ask that you inform us before proceeding. Please contact the editor who requested the review.
21 You should not show the paper to anyone else, including colleagues or students, unless you have asked them to write a review, or to help with your review.
22 Papers sent to you for review are confidential. However, requesting the opinion of a single colleague may be appropriate in some circumstances. Please consult your associate editor if you’d like to the input of outside help for the review.
23 We also ask that you do not discuss the papers you have reviewed with colleagues unless they have been published.
24 Can I have a student co-review with me? Yes, if you are a professor who is mentoring a graduate student, you may co-review the paper with them. Please be sure to contact the handling editor and indicate upon submitting your review that it was completed with a co-reviewer.
25 Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.
26 Sometimes a reviewer will want to involve junior researchers in the review of an article as it can be good practice and experience for that person. However, you should ensure that you obtain permission from the journal editor prior to accepting the invitation to review. The names of everyone involved in doing the review should be submitted to the editor so that the journal records accurately reflect the review process that took place. Full guidelines for peer reviewers can be found on the Committee on Publication Ethics website here.
27 Inferred that this is not allowed from the following: Treat the manuscript as confidential: The manuscript (or its existence) should not be shown to, disclosed to, or discussed with others, except in special cases, where specific scientific advice may be sought; in that event the editor must be informed and the identities of those consulted disclosed.
28 Ask a senior colleague, with experience of reviewing, whether you could work with them on a review. This was part of the general T&F site.
29 Manuscript Confidentiality: A reviewer should treat both the submitted manuscript and dataas received from the journal, and his/her referee report and related correspondence asconfidential documents. Such documents should neither be disclosed to nor discussed withothers except, in special cases, when shared in confidence with persons from whom specificexpert advice may be sought. In such instances, the identities of those to be consulted shouldbe disclosed to the editor in advance
30 Treat the manuscript as confidential: The manuscript (or its existence) should not be shown to, disclosed to, or discussed with others, except in special cases, where specific scientific advice may be sought; in that event the editor must be informed and the identities of those consulted disclosed. Information acquired by a reviewer from such a paper is not available for disclosure or citation until the paper is published.
31 It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but please identify them to the editors. Consulting with experts from outside the referee’s own laboratory may be acceptable, but please check with the editors before doing so, to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors.
32 We ask referees to treat the review process as strictly confidential, and not to discuss the manuscript with anyone not directly involved in the review. It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but please identify them to the editors. Consulting with experts from outside the referee’s own laboratory may be acceptable, but please check with the editors before doing so, to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors.
33 It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but please identify them to the editors.
34 In some instances, reviewers may feel that it would be helpful to obtain additional advice from a colleague. In such cases, we ask that the reviewer contact the editor in advance to ensure that the editor has the opportunity to take additional information into account before permitting communications that have the potential to violate confidentiality. It is not appropriate to discuss unpublished manuscripts at laboratory meetings or journal clubs. Reviewers can collaborate with trainees (graduate students and post-docs) in the evaluation of manuscripts, and we appreciate that such collaboration functions as an important training exercise. However, we ask that reviewers keep the number of collaborators to a minimum and include the identities of all the individuals involved in the “comments to the editors” component of their review. Regardless, the person originally invited to review the manuscript is ultimately responsible for maintaining confidentiality and for the content and accuracy of the report. We encourage referees to inform collaborating reviewers about appropriate guidelines and ethics for peer review, as outlined in this document.
35 Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others (e.g. see COPE Case 14-06: Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality). Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal (e.g. see COPE Case 11-29: Reviewer asks trainee to review manuscript). The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.
36 A reviewer should recognize that a manuscript under review is a confidential document. Reviewers should not use or disseminate unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in an unpublished manuscript, except with the consent of the author. During review, the manuscript should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought. In that event, the reviewer maintains responsibility for ensuring confidentiality. The reviewer should inform the editor of others who make significant contributions to a review.
37 Trainee Reviewers Trainees (students, residents) may review for the journal if they have the expertise to review the subject matter of the manuscript. They should be assisted by a senior mentor during the review process, and the mentor must sign off on the review. Trainees must abide by all reviewer guidelines, including the necessity to recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest, including intellectual (e.g., having a strong belief that makes it difficult for you to evaluate the reported findings), financial (e.g., gaining a financial benefit if the work is either published or not published), or personal (e.g., having a personal or professional relationship with one or more of the authors that makes it difficult to fairly evaluate the work).
38 Although referees may consult and seek advice from other researchers or colleagues, the referee must ensure that the confidentiality of these materials is preserved. In such cases, we require referees to provide the names and contact information of those researchers who have been consulted.
39 Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.
40 Material under review is a privileged communication that should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the designated review process unless necessary and approved by the editor. If you wish to consult a colleague for assistance with the review, please ensure they are free of any conflicts of interest and agree to abide by journal policies.
41 Sometimes a reviewer will want to involve junior researchers in the review of an article as it can be good practice and experience for that person. However, you should ensure that you obtain permission from the journal editor prior to accepting the invitation to review. The names of everyone involved in doing the review should be submitted to the editor so that the journal records accurately reflect the review process that took place.
42 Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor.
43 It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but we ask that they are identified to the Editorial Board Member.
44 The peer-review process rests on the assumption that an assigned reviewer will treat all manuscripts as privileged information. A reviewer may request advice from another party, subject to the general principle of confidentiality and notification of the JCI.
45 Supervisors who wish to involve their students or junior researchers in peer review must request permission from the editor and abide by the editor’s decision. In cases where a student performs the review under the guidance of the supervisor, that should be noted and the student should be acknowledged as the reviewer of record.