You can set your preferences for social media and targeted advertising cookies here. We always place functional cookies and analytical cookies. Functional cookies are necessary for the site to work properly. With analytical cookies we collect anonymous data about the use of our site. With that information, the site can be further improved so that it is easier for you to find what you are looking for.
Peer review, the evaluation of scientific articles and research proposals by other researchers, is an important pillar of scientific research. Every researcher actively contributes to this. A review can have a major impact on the authors or applicants of the reviewed work and should therefore be prepared carefully, taking into account the following rules of conduct. More information can be found in the Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers of the COPECommittee on Publication Ethics.
Researchers who are invited to review the work of others shall:
Decline the invitation to review when there is a conflict of interest, for example arising from a current or recent (within the last three years) professional, personal, or financial relationship with one or more of the authors or applicants (see Personal Interests Code and Explanatory Notes ZonMw & NWONetherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek)
2020). In case of doubt, the researcher should inform the editor of the journal or the subsidy provider of this potential conflicting interest.
Decline the invitation to review if they do not have sufficient expertise in the relevant domain to evaluate the manuscript or application carefully.
Not delay the review process by exceeding the deadline for submission.
Ensure that each comment is factually correct, specific, and scientifically substantiated.
Not only describe what could be improved but also indicate the strengths of the article or project proposal.
Where possible, provide suggestions for improving the work.
Not communicate with third parties about the authors or content of the reviewed work.
Not contact the authors or applicants directly.
Inform the journal editor or subsidy provider if they suspect scientific misconduct.
Be very reticent to suggest including their own publications in a manuscript.
Not use the IP they are exposed to for their own purposes without the permission of the authors.
Senior researchers should teach junior researchersA researcher who does not (yet) have final responsibility for a project, such as a master’s student, PhD student, or starting postdoc, who conducts the research under someone else’s supervision.
to properly review manuscripts or research proposals, for example by having them work along with them on a review and having them write a review under supervision several times. Useful information can be found online in the Reviewer training materials on the website of the British Medical Journal.
