Reviewers should report any suspicions of misconduct to the journal staff for investigation. This includes, but is not limited to, suspicions of:
We follow the COPE guidelines on responding to whistleblowers, which includes protecting your anonymity.
Considering the evolving capabilities of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), including large language models (LLMs) and AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, this policy outlines acceptable and unacceptable uses of these tools by reviewers.
Generative AI tools can offer real benefits when used responsibly, such as improving clarity, readability and accessibility of peer review reports. They can help reviewers communicate feedback more effectively and overcome language barriers.
However, these tools are not infallible. They can produce misleading or fabricated content, lack accountability, and cannot guarantee confidentiality. Uploading manuscript material to GenAI platforms may expose sensitive data to third parties, breaching author rights and privacy laws. Misuse of AI in peer review risks damaging trust in the process and undermining research integrity.
This policy aims to balance these considerations, safeguarding confidentiality, accuracy, and fairness while allowing transparent use of AI for language improvement.
Reviewers may use GenAI tools only to assist with improving the written quality of their peer review reports. This includes:
Reviewers should disclose any use of GenAI tools for language editing and translation. Reviewers (including co-reviewers) remain fully responsible for the contents of their reviews and for ensuring their accuracy, integrity, and originality.
Reviewers must not:
If a reviewer misuses GenAI tools, we may disregard some or all of their review.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to:
GenAI tools are not expert peers. They lack higher-level reasoning and critical thinking, are prone to generating false or misleading content (“hallucinations”), and cannot take responsibility for the material they produce. They also lack the legal personality to sign publishing agreements or licenses and cannot be held accountable for ethical compliance.
Reviewers are expected to point out relevant work that has not been cited, and use citations to explain where elements of the work have been previously reported. When writing a report, reviewers should justify any literature references suggested for inclusion in the work.
Citations should add value, and should not be unfairly biased towards an individual, group or organisation. Please note that the Editor reserves the right to challenge excessive citation suggestions, especially to the reviewer’s own work. The practice of including superfluous references, including to the reviewer’s own work, to promote and inflate citation scores is unethical. The Editor reserves the right to exclude citation suggestions from reports if these are considered to be potential acts of citation manipulation, and/or to protect reviewers’ anonymity.
Reviewers should inform the journal if they are unable to review a paper or can only do so with some delay. Reviewers should not delay the peer review process unnecessarily, either deliberately or inadvertently.
Reviewers should judge objectively the quality of the research reported, give fair, frank and constructive criticism and refrain from personal criticism of the authors. Reviewers’ judgements should be explained and supported so that authors can understand the basis of the comments and judgements.
Reviewer names are kept strictly confidential. Reviewer identities may only be disclosed to journal Editorial Board members, who are also instructed to maintain confidentiality. You should not disclose your identity to the authors, including sending reports directly to the authors.
Information and ideas obtained whilst acting as a reviewer must be kept confidential and not used for competitive advantage.
We also ask that you do not discuss the papers you have reviewed with colleagues unless they have been published.
To uphold impartiality, you should consider any potential conflict of interest before agreeing to review and should contact the editorial office in the following instances:
Minor conflicts do not disqualify you from reporting on an article, but will be taken into account when considering the reviewers’ recommendations. Major conflicts of interest (especially relating to a financial commercial interest >£5000/year) do disqualify you. You should act within the spirit of the Nolan principles of public life.
If you are unable to act as a reviewer due to a conflict of interest, we will select an alternative reviewer.
If the journal is double-anonymous you may not be sure if you have a conflict of interest. If you suspect there may be a reason you should not act as a reviewer, please contact the editorial office who will be able to investigate and advise.
Yusuf Kasim is a PhD student at University of Ljubljana. His article “Dual unitary circuits in random geometries” was published under the transformative agreement with the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia.
“Having a migratory background from a developing county (Iraq) and being in personal contact with scientist in both natural and social science in my home county makes me very aware of the difficulties scientists face in these countries accessing reputable research. Thus, I always held the belief that science should be open and free to access to everyone.
It was then very important for me that my research is accessible to everyone, so the choice to publish open access was an easy one to make. The experience to publish in J.Phys.A was a smooth one, it was my first published article, and was generally well received by the community.
I believe that initiatives to promote open access are important to the community, and I would encourage my colleague to choose OA for their publications.”
Andreas Nygaard is a PhD Student at Aarhus University, Denmark. His article “CONNECT: a neural network based framework for emulating cosmological observables and cosmological parameter inference” was published under the transformative agreement with The Royal Danish Library in Denmark.
What inspired you to choose open access (OA) for your latest research, and how did the transformative agreement (TA) support that decision?
I chose open access to make my research more available to others and to improve my reach. The transformative agreement covered the costs of open access through Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.
Can you describe any noticeable impact your OA publication has had, such as increased visibility, citations, or engagement with your work?
I believe the open access has improved the visibility of the paper leading to more people reading it. It has probably led to a few more citations as well.
How did the process of publishing through the TA compare to your previous publishing experiences?
The process was much the same as when publishing without open access. I simply had to select the correct publishing format once I was informed that the TA was covering the costs.
Can you share a moment when you realised the value of making your research freely available to access around the world?
In my field, it is very common and important to make your research freely available to other researchers. This allows the scientific community to advance at a much higher rate.
What would you say to other researchers considering publishing OA through a TA?
Open access is always the better option if the means are made available to you, so other researchers should definitely make use of such agreements to help them improve the visibility of their work.
Prof. Dr. Bahattin Koç is the Director of SU IMC and Professor of Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering at the Sabancı University. His article “Design and bioprinting for tissue interfaces” was published under the transformative agreement with the Anatolian University Libraries Consortium (ANKOS) in Turkey.
What inspired you to choose open access (OA) for your latest research, and how did the transformative agreement (TA) support that decision?
Open access ensures broader visibility and accessibility, allowing my research to reach a wider audience. The ANKOS–IOP agreement made it easy to publish my paper without financial barriers, supporting my goal of global dissemination of my research.
Can you describe any noticeable impact your OA publication has had, such as increased visibility, citations, or engagement with your work?
At the time of writing this, our paper reached over 2,900 downloads and 18 citations, that is clear indication of increased engagement and interdisciplinary interest because of OA.
How did the process of publishing through the TA compare to your previous publishing experiences?
Overall, the process went smoothly and without any issues. The TA simplified the process and allowed me to focus on my research and publishing my paper.
Can you share a moment when you realised the value of making your research freely available to access around the world?
Getting our research to reach to the researcher in a resource-limited setting, who accessed and applied our research findings was deeply rewarding.
What would you say to other researchers considering publishing OA through a TA?
I would strongly encourage it. Publishing open access through a transformative agreement not only amplified the reach and impact of my work but also contributed to a more transparent and collaborative research ecosystem.
