Peer review innovation at IOP Publishing

What is co-review?

Co-review enables two people to collaborate on a reviewer report, with both having the option to receive recognition via Web of Science. Co-review aims to help early career researchers with limited peer review experience build their skills alongside more experienced colleagues or supervisors.

Critiquing manuscripts can deepen early career researchers’ subject knowledge, improve their understanding of how to structure and write papers, and boost confidence in their expertise.

How to co-review on IOP Publishing journals

All reviewers must follow the reviewer guidelines for IOP Publishing journals, including ethics for reviewers and COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Co-review FAQs

• I want to co-review with a junior colleague—what should I do?

If you’re invited to review and want to co-review with a colleague, select the “Co-review with a colleague” link in the invitation email, then enter their name and contact details in the box provided. IOP Publishing handles all data in line with our privacy policy.

If reviewers are still needed, your colleague will be invited to review. If they accept, they will need to share the manuscript PDF with you so you can work on the report together offline. The final report should be submitted via your co-reviewer’s ScholarOne account.

Senior researchers are encouraged to support junior colleagues through the process by:

• • Making sure expectations are clear
  • Setting a timeline to allow them to complete the report but also meet the deadline
  • Reviewing and discussing the report before submission
  • Checking the recommendation aligns with the report content

• I have been invited to co-review by a senior colleague—what should I do?

If you’re invited to co-review with a colleague, do not select the “Co-review with a colleague” link in the invitation email—please select “Agree” instead.

Once you receive the “Paper now ready to review…” email, you can share the manuscript PDF with your colleague and work on the report together offline.

Although you are responsible for writing and submitting the reviewer report, the colleague who recommended you should support you through the process. When the report is complete and both of you are satisfied, you should submit it to the journal through your ScholarOne account.

• Is there any additional training or guidance for new reviewers?

Yes—IOP Publishing offers free, online peer review training, tailored specifically for the physical sciences. The training course takes approximately 2 hours to complete and can be accessed here: Peer Review Excellence.

For more information on how to submit a report, you can read our guidance on How to prepare and send in your reviewer report.

• Can journal board members use the co-review functionality?

Board members should not request to co-review with a colleague, as we rely on your expertise in your field and your knowledge of the journal. Also, there may be problems with confidentiality, so it is inappropriate for your colleague to work on the report.

• I requested to co-review with a colleague, but they have not been invited yet?

There may be a short delay between you requesting to co-review with a colleague and your colleague being invited. Our editorial team will need to check if more reviewer reports are needed on the manuscript. In some cases, other reviewers will have accepted their review invitations and additional reports are not required.

• Can I delegate a review to more than one colleague?

If you would like more than one colleague to work on the reviewer report, please contact the journal inbox. We do allow this for a maximum of 3 people, but it is important that our editorial team know who has written the report. Only one colleague will be able to receive the invitation and submit the reviewer report via ScholarOne.

• Will all co-reviewers receive an evaluation of the report?

No, only the person who submitted the report will receive an evaluation, provided they opt in on the report form. However, all co-reviewers can gain recognition through the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service.

Why do we offer co-review on our journals?

At IOP Publishing, we are aware that early career researchers and PhD students will occasionally write reviewer reports on behalf of their supervisors without receiving any credit for their work. Some of the benefits of co-review include:

• • Alleviating the burden for senior researchers who receive many invitations to review
  • Allowing early career researchers to build their peer review competency
  • Providing early career researchers with benefits and rewards for reviewing
  • Ensuring full accountability in peer review, so that everyone who contributes to a review is known to the editorial team

IOP Publishing was the first physics publisher to adopt transparent peer review on all of its open access journals. Transparent peer review allows the reader to view the full history of a manuscript including the reviewer reports. You can read more about transparent peer review here.

How does it work?

• The reviewer comments, author responses and editorial decision letters are published alongside the final published manuscript, in citable form. The manuscript may have been single- or double-anonymously peer reviewed before publication. We hope that this greater transparency will improve the quality of the review process, give more recognition to the work of reviewers and help with the teaching of best practice in peer review.
• Both authors and reviewers can opt out of transparent peer review. The peer review history will only appear for manuscripts where the author and (all) reviewers opt in. Reviewers who do opt in can still choose to remain anonymous.

What should I do if I, the reviewer, want to opt in to transparent peer review?

For reviewers, you will see an option to agree or decline transparent peer review on the reviewer report form. There will also be an option to choose whether or not you would like your name to appear publicly with your reviewer report if the authors and reviewers all opt in.

How do authors opt in to transparent peer review?

Authors will have been advised to check the journal they are submitting to supports transparent peer review (it is available on all of IOP Publishing’s fully open access journals). If it does, they will have seen an option to agree or decline transparent peer review before they submitted their manuscript.

What does transparent peer review look like?

The peer review history is available only for manuscripts displaying a Web of Science (formerly known as Publons) badge (above) at the top of the manuscript (next to the title). Click on the badge to view further information. All peer review content displayed will be covered by a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license.

Some example manuscripts published with transparent peer review content are available here:

• ERL: ERL example 1; ERL example 2
• JNE: JNE example 1; JNE example 2
• JPMat: JPMat example 1

Most journals operate a peer review model known as single-anonymous (previously known as single-blind). This method has been used since peer review originated. Although it is the most widely used model of peer review within science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields, single-anonymous is imperfect.

Single anonymous: Reviewers are anonymous to authors. Author identities are visible to reviewers.

Double anonymous: Authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other.

In 2020, IOP Publishing became the first major publisher to commit to adopting double-anonymous peer review across all of our journals, with the goal of reducing bias with respect to gender, race, country of origin or affiliation, and ensuring that scientific manuscripts are judged objectively on their own merit. Double-anonymous will be the default option when submitting a paper, but authors have the option to remain under the single-anonymous model (by not redacting their names and affiliations at submission).

When you receive a manuscript to review it will either be single- or double-anonymous. Authors are responsible for anonymising their manuscript before submission. If you are invited to review an anonymised manuscript, we ask you to undertake an objective review and not to go out of your way to undermine author anonymity.

Read our double anonymous FAQs.

In the current system, peer reviewers rarely get feedback on their reviewer reports, including how useful the editor found the report, to what extent their report influenced the editorial decision, and whether there were any issues with the manuscript that they might have missed.

At IOP Publishing, we have implemented a system to send reviewers feedback on their reports. There is now an option to opt in and receive a numerical evaluation of your reviewer report. Evaluations are based on the structure, constructiveness, and usefulness of the report, not the scientific content. Please see the criteria we use to evaluate reviewer reports for more details.

Please note that reports are not evaluated until a decision is made on the manuscript, so there may be a delay between you submitting your reviewer report and receiving your evaluation. We do not provide evaluations for Editorial Board Member or Guest Editor reports.