Archives: Questions

What is co-review?

Co-review allows two people to collaborate on a reviewer report, with both having the option to receive recognition via Web of Science. We offer co-review in the hope that early career researchers with limited experience of peer review can work together with more experienced colleagues or supervisors to build their peer review competency.

 

How to co-review on IOP Publishing journals

If you are invited to review and wish to co-review with a colleague, select the ‘Co-review with a colleague’ link in the journal’s invitation email. You will be asked for the name and contact details of the person you will be co-reviewing with. Your co-reviewer will be invited to review the manuscript if we still require reviewers. If they accept the invitation you can work on the reviewer report together. The completed reviewer report form should be submitted to the journal through the co-reviewer’s ScholarOne account.

IOP Publishing processes all data in line with its privacy policy.

 

 

What to do if you have been invited to co-review by a senior colleague?

Co-review is a great way to get involved in the peer review community. Critiquing a manuscript can give you a deeper knowledge of your field, help you understand how to structure and write your own manuscripts, and build confidence in your own expertise.

While it is your responsibility to write and submit the reviewer report, the colleague that recommended you should help you through this process.

Here are some tips on how to review a manuscript:

• If this is your first time reviewing, we strongly advise that you complete our free Peer Review Excellence online training. We recommend this training to early career researchers and anyone who is submitting their first review. This comprehensive training course is designed to give researchers in the physical sciences the tools and confidence to review well. The course covers the fundamentals of peer review, how to write a review and peer review ethics. Our Peer Review Excellence course takes 1–2 hours to complete. You can register for free here: Peer Review Excellence.
• Follow this link to find information on How to prepare and send in your reviewer report.
• Ensure that you get feedback and support from your co-reviewer by sending them your reviewer report to read before it is submitted.

To find more information on what submitting a reviewer report entails, you can read IOP Publishing’s information on Becoming a journal reviewer, How to prepare and send in your reviewer report, and After you have submitted your reviewer report.

 

What support to provide if you have recommended a colleague to co-review

We ask that senior researchers co-reviewing with more junior colleagues provide support through the peer review process.

Here are some tips for ensuring successful co-review. After deciding to co-review:

• Check that your colleague understands what is expected
• Help them to set up a timeline to complete the reviewer report by the deadline
• Give them time to complete their report
• Read over their report before it is submitted and discuss with them any suggestions for changes
• Check that their recommendation matches the content of the reviewer report

You may also want to direct your co-review colleague towards formal training in peer review. IOP Publishing offers free, online peer review training, tailored specifically for the physical sciences. The training course takes 1–2 hours to complete and can be accessed here: Peer Review Excellence.

 

Co-review ethics policy

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

 

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. By implementing this co-review functionality on our system we hope to:

• Alleviate the burden for senior researchers who receive many invitations to review
• Allow early career researchers to build their peer review competency
• Provide early career researchers with benefits and rewards for reviewing
• Ensure full accountability in peer review, so that everyone who contributes to peer review is known to the editorial team

 

 

Co-review FAQs

 

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

Board members should not delegate with co-review. As a board member we rely on your expertise in your field and your knowledge of the journal. Also, there made be problems with confidentiality. Therefore, it is inappropriate for your colleague to work on the report.

 

• I delegated to a colleague, but they have not been invited yet?

There may be a short delay between you letting us know you want to co-review with a colleague and your colleague receiving the invitation to review while our editorial team check if any 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.

 

• How do I view the manuscript if I delegated to a colleague?

The colleague you are reviewing with will receive an invitation and instructions on how to collaborate with you ‘offline’ to complete the reviewer report. Once they have received and accepted the invitation they will be able to access the manuscript and share it with you.

 

• How do I accept the review invitation if a colleague delegated the review to me?

If you have received a review invitation after your colleague recommended you for co-review, you will need to accept the review invitation. Do not select ‘Co-review with a colleague’ as this will prompt you to enter the details of a new colleague.

 

• 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 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.

 

Find clear and practical guidance to support your publishing journey. These resources share insight from experienced and highly cited researchers, helping you develop confidence, improve your writing and make informed decisions about your research career.

Top‑cited authors from India and North America share their tips for early‑career researchers

This article presents practical advice from highly cited authors based in India and North America. It focuses on actionable recommendations that early‑career researchers can use to strengthen their visibility, improve research communication and understand what successful authors did early in their careers.

Lessons from IOP Publishing’s India Top Cited Authors

This article explains how top‑cited authors structure and communicate their work to achieve greater influence and clarity. Highlighting writing approaches that have helped papers perform better and giving guidance that early‑career researchers can apply directly to their own manuscripts.

 

 Top-cited authors from North America share their tips for boosting research impact

Highly cited researchers across North America share clear and actionable advice on how to strengthen the impact of your work. (From left to right: Carl White, Stephen Taylor and Sarah Vigeland)

The article highlights how meaningful impact comes from solving important problems, engaging across disciplines and communicating research in a way that attracts broad readership. Insights from astrophysicists Sarah Vigeland and Stephen Taylor show how long‑term collaboration and relevance to multiple scientific communities can amplify visibility. The article also features bio‑inspired engineer Carl White, whose interdisciplinary work on tuna‑inspired robotics demonstrates how cross‑field innovation can drive citation growth and research influence.

Authors are not responsible for article publication charges (APCs). Article publication charges are agreed directly with Conference Organisers and included in the Publishing Agreement. The cost is calculated on a paper fee basis upon delivery of the content.
Papers are required to be in their final form for publication and post-publication changes will be charged directly to authors.

As an Editorial Board Member, you play a vital role in safeguarding the quality, integrity and relevance of our journals. Your expertise directly shapes the research communities we serve, and we are committed to recognising that contribution.
At IOP Publishing, we do this through a range of benefits, professional recognition and opportunities designed to support your career and strengthen your impact within the research ecosystem. 

What you receive as an Editorial Board Member of an IOPP-owned journal:

Journal-related benefits

• Complimentary journal access:
  If you serve on the board of a hybrid journal, you will receive free access to the journal for the duration of your term.
• Article processing charge support:
  If you work on a gold open access journal, you will receive two APC waivers per year.

Recognition and professional visibility

• Formal accreditation:
  From 2026, you will receive a digital certificate of membership and an accreditation badge, providing visible and shareable recognition of your editorial contribution.
• Editorial Excellence Awards:
  Also launching in 2026, these awards will recognise outstanding editorial contributions across subject areas. Award recipients will receive formal certification and increased visibility through IOP Publishing channels.
• Public acknowledgement:
  Your name will appear on the journal’s Editorial Board webpage, enhancing your professional profile and discoverability.

Networking and career development

• Professional connections:
  You may be invited to Editorial Board dinners and networking events, offering opportunities to build relationships across disciplines and career stages.
• Career progression:
  If you are earlier in your research career, board membership provides leadership experience, editorial insight and access to expanded professional networks.

Contributing with purpose

As a society-owned publisher, IOP Publishing reinvests 100 percent of its profits into public and scientific good. Editorial Board Members support science directly through this work, contributing to a publishing model where research quality is prioritised over profit.

IOP Publishing (IOP) has a transformative agreement with Croatian Academic and Research Libraries Consortium (CALC) in Croatia to enable a transition to open access publishing.

Who can benefit?
All corresponding authors that are current staff members, researchers (permanent, temporary and visiting), or students at one of the institutions below at the point of submission, can publish open access at no cost to themselves. The corresponding author is the person listed as Corresponding Author at the time of submission, and is the person responsible for communicating with the journal during the peer review and publication process.

What’s included?

• Articles accepted will be eligible for transformative agreement funding to enable authors to publish open access with no cost to themselves
• Research paper, Focus Collection, letter and review article types
• Included journals are this in lists A, B, C and D. Click here for a full title list of eligible journals.

Please note
You may find our author guide for submitting under a transformative agreement helpful located in our Transformative Agreement hub.
For more information, please contact your relevant library contact at your university.

Eligible Institutions
Institute of Physics, Zagreb
Ruđer Bošković Institute
University of Osijek
University of Rijeka
University of Slavonski Brod
University of Split
University of Zagreb

Is your institution not listed here? Recommend open access funding to your library.

Reviewers should report any suspicions of misconduct to the journal staff for investigation. This includes, but is not limited to, suspicions of:

• Plagiarism
• Duplicate publication
• Parallel submission
• Data fabrication / falsification
• Image manipulation
• Incorrect authorship
• Author conflict of interest
• Unethical research practices
• Content that could be considered offensive

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.

Why this policy matters

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.

Acceptable use

Reviewers may use GenAI tools only to assist with improving the written quality of their peer review reports. This includes:

• Checking grammar, spelling, punctuation, and formatting
• Enhancing clarity, flow, and structure of the language
• Translating a completed review from the reviewer’s first language into English

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.

Unacceptable use

Reviewers must not:

• Upload any part of a manuscript under review, including text, figures, tables, supplementary files, or associated communications, to GenAI tools
• Use Gen AI tools to analyse, summarise, interpret, or evaluate the manuscript or its scientific content
• Use GenAI tools to generate references or citations
• Use GenAI tools to write any portion of the review report beyond language refinement

If a reviewer misuses GenAI tools, we may disregard some or all of their review.

Reviewer responsibility

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to:

• Adhere to IOP Publishing’s ethical standards, including confidentiality, conflict of interest disclosure, and maintaining anonymity
• Ensure that the manuscript under review is not shared with any third party, including GenAI tools
• Take full responsibility for the content of their review, whether conducted individually or as part of a co-review

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.