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.

 

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
• Promote engagement of early career researchers from communities that are under-represented in the physical sciences

 

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, available at ioppublishing.org/privacy-cookies-policy.

 

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.

 

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.

This document gives an example of a reviewer report form. The forms will vary between journals. This example is from Physica Scripta.

 

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.

 

After you have submitted your reviewer report

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 an evaluation of your reviewer report. The evaluation will be based on the structure, constructiveness, and usefulness of the report, not the scientific content. 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 report and receiving your evaluation.

 

Recognition

Our editors rate all of the reviews we receive on a scale of 1–5, with 5 representing a review of outstanding quality. Click here to read the full breakdown of the reviewer report ratings. These are the criteria to have a reviewer report rated 5 out of 5:

Criteria	Level to be rated 5 out of 5
Thoroughness	Detailed and very thorough: comments on essentially all sections of the manuscript
Assessment of significance	Comments on the significance of the work within the context of the field
Literature comparison	Includes a comprehensive comparison with existing literature
Feedback quality	Constructive feedback that enables the author(s) to improve the manuscript
Recommendation	Recommendation is clearly justified and consistent with the journal’s editorial standards
Timeliness	Submitted in the agreed timeframe

 

Any reviewer who submits a reviewer report rated 5 will achieve IOP Trusted Reviewer status and receive a certificate. For reviewers who have completed our Peer Review Excellence training, the threshold for IOP Trusted Reviewer status is reduced to a report rated 4 or above.

You can also gain recognition through the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly known as Publons).

 

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.

Our editors rate all of the reviewer reports we receive on a scale of 1–5, with 5 representing a review of outstanding quality. Click here to read the full breakdown of the reviewer report ratings. These are the criteria to have a reviewer report rated 5 out of 5:

Criteria	Level to be rated 5 out of 5
Thoroughness	Detailed and very thorough: comments on essentially all sections of the manuscript
Assessment of significance	Comments on the significance of the work within the context of the field
Literature comparison	Includes a comprehensive comparison with existing literature
Feedback quality	Constructive feedback that enables the author(s) to improve the manuscript
Recommendation	Recommendation is clearly justified and consistent with the journal’s editorial standards
Timeliness	Submitted in the agreed timeframe

 

These documents contain examples of outstanding reviewer reports in the fields of:

• Smart materials
• Laser-induced fluorescence
• Plasmas
• Medical imaging
• Quantum computing
• Cosmology
• Medical physics
• Piezoelectric energy

 

This document contains examples of reviewer reports rated 1, 3 and 5.

 

Here is a template you can use to help structure your reviewer report:

Comments to the editor/s
These comments will not be shared with the authors. Use this section if there is anything you want to say that would not be appropriate to tell the authors. If you suspect any form of author misconduct, mention it here.
Comments to the author/s
The following is a good way to structure your review.
Summary	Open your reviewer report with a summary of the manuscript and its findings. This shows the authors and editors of the journal that you have read and understood the work.
Comments on the manuscript	Organise your comments into ‘Major points’ and ‘Minor points’ where applicable. Comment on the originality, scientific rigour, significance and clarity of the work. Compare the manuscript to existing literature. Check that the authors have cited the most relevant and recent appropriate work. Make your review as thorough as possible by commenting on all sections of the manuscript. For example, you could structure your comments using manuscript section headings such as: “Abstract”, “Introduction”, “Methods”, “Results and Discussion”, “Conclusion” and “Supplementary material” (as appropriate). Familiarise yourself with the editorial standards of the journal and comment on whether the manuscript meets those standards. Make sure that your recommendations are specific enough for the authors to follow. It is helpful to number your points. This can make it easier for the authors to respond to your comments and when checking the revised manuscript.
Recommendation	At the end of your reviewer report, make a recommendation to the editor. Clearly state and justify your recommendation. This means explaining why you have chosen the reject/revise/accept option.

 

For more information about reviewing for IOP Publishing, go to our homepage for reviewers.

 

For the most up-to-date advice on how to assess a manuscript, sign up for our free, comprehensive online training course. Completing the online course is the fastest way to be invited to review.

At IOP Publishing we offer an online course in Peer Review Excellence. 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 around 1–2 hours to complete.

If you pass the course, you will be fast-tracked towards IOP Trusted Reviewer status and be badged as a Graduate on our reviewer selection system, making it more likely that you will be selected to review. Also, for reviewers who have completed our Peer Review Excellence training, the threshold for IOP Trusted Reviewer status is reduced to a reviewer report rated 4 or above. Over 50% of all Peer Review Excellence graduates go on to get IOP Trusted Reviewer status when they submit a reviewer report.

This online course will provide you with the skills and confidence to evaluate scientific manuscripts and write an outstanding reviewer report. Importantly, it shows you what the editor is looking out for when they read your report.

Anyone can join the programme, but it is specifically designed for early career researchers or scientists who want to improve their peer review skills.

You can register for free here: Peer Review Excellence.

Please note that in cases where the manuscript editor rescinds a reviewer report due to excessive self-citation, citation manipulation or any other form of reviewer misconduct, the re-submitted reviewer report will receive a maximum rating of 2.

Once you have completed the Peer Review Excellence course and received a review invitation, you can read through 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.

 

 

We created IOP Trusted Reviewer certification as a way to recognise the hard work and expertise of our very best reviewers. Our editors rate all of the reviewer reports we receive on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating a review of outstanding quality. Reviewers who score 5 out of 5 achieve IOP Trusted Reviewer status. In November 2022, we reached 10,000 Trusted Reviewers. Click here to read about the 10,000 Trusted Reviewer milestone. Successful graduates of our Peer Review Excellence course will be fast-tracked towards IOP Trusted Reviewer status. We aim to invite you to review as soon as a manuscript becomes available in your field of expertise. For training graduates, the threshold for achieving IOP Trusted Reviewer status is a report rated 4 or 5 out of 5. Over 50% of all Peer Review Excellence graduates go on to get IOP Trusted Reviewer status when they submit a reviewer report.

In 2023, we started awarding IOP Trusted Reviewer status to reviewers who consistently submit good reviews. We would like to thank these reviewers for supporting IOP Publishing and let them know we value the work they do. These reviewers will be eligible for our annual Outstanding Reviewer Awards.

 

 

To help recognise the vital contribution our reviewers make to the publishing process, IOP Publishing has a reward programme based on open access discounts. When you review a manuscript for an IOP Publishing journal, you may claim a 10% discount on the cost of publishing a manuscript in any IOP Publishing journal on a gold open access basis. Discounts are valid for two years from the date the reviewer report was submitted, and can be applied to an article processing charge by any co-author.

• Which journals offer reviewer discounts on article publication charges?
• How to claim a reviewer discount on article publication charges
• Terms and conditions for reviewer discounts on article publication charges

 

 

Click here for the Chinese language version of this page.

IOP Publishing is committed to recognising and rewarding peer review. Here are some of the benefits you can enjoy as a reviewer:

• When you review for an IOP Publishing journal you may claim a 10% discount towards the cost of publishing an article in any IOP Publishing-owned journal on a gold open access basis, within two years of your review. Any author on a manuscript may claim a 10% reviewer discount. Read the Terms and Conditions of our reviewer discount programme here.
• We recognise our best reviewers via IOP Trusted Reviewer certification. You can be fast-tracked towards IOP Trusted Reviewer certification by completing our free online training course here.
• We offer free, interactive online peer review workshops for our reviewers. Register your interest in attending a Peer Review Excellence workshop here.
• By reviewing for our journals you will be eligible for the annual IOP Publishing Outstanding Reviewer Awards.
• For participating journals you can opt in to publish your reviewer reports and view other reviewer comments via transparent peer review.

 

 

This is normally a quicker process than reviewing an original manuscript. The deadline for your comments will be 5–21 days, depending on the journal. If you need an extension please get in touch with the editorial office.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, you are checking that the revisions are satisfactory. You will receive a copy of the revised manuscript as well as the author’s response to the reviewer reports.

Please note that any author response attachments can be found by clicking on the “Details” tab above the PDF of the manuscript on the reviewer report:

You will then need to scroll down to “Version History”, and click the blue text next to “Response”:

If there is no link in this section, then the author response can be found in our initial invitation email with the previous reviewer reports.

It is generally not appropriate to request additional changes (not mentioned in your original reviewer report) at this stage.

If the author fails to answer your criticisms, please check the ‘Unsatisfactory Revision’ box on the reviewer report form and describe the areas that were not addressed in the revision in your comments.

You will be invited to update the original quality assessment scores you provided with your original review. If you feel the paper has been improved, your scores should increase.

You will be asked to give a recommendation. The editor will take into account your recommendation along with those provided by any other reviewers. Your recommendation should be either:

• Accept
• Amendments required before acceptance
• Unsatisfactory revision

 

 

We manage all our submissions and peer review through a web-based system called ScholarOne. It is really easy to set up your account and keep it up to date.

Watch this video to find out how to set-up a ScholarOne account.

ScholarOne now supports login and account creation via your ORCID iD. See our ScholarOne login and account creation via ORCID iD guide for further details.

 

How to create an account on ScholarOne

1) Follow this link to access ScholarOne

2) Select ‘Create an Account’ on the toolbar:

3) Associate an ORCID iD to your account. Then fill in your name and email address, then select ‘Next’:

4) Enter details for your institution, then select ‘Next’:

5) Enter a User ID and Password. Select your gender and level of academic experience. Select if you would like to be contacted by IOP Publishing. Check the box to be invited for peer review, then scroll down:

6) Under ‘Unavailable Dates’, let us know when you are unavailable to prevent us from inviting you in this period of time. Fill in the section ‘Research Interests’. Read the IOP Publishing – Privacy Policy and the Clarivate – ScholarOne Privacy Notice, then check the box. Finally, select ‘Finish’:

Watch this video to find out how to update an existing ScholarOne account.

 

Updating your availability on ScholarOne

If you are planning on being unavailable for a period of time, please enter the dates into the ‘Unavailable Dates’ section of the ‘User ID/Password & Other Information’ area of your ScholarOne account. This will help ensure we do not send you requests to review a manuscript while you are unavailable.

 

Adding your research interests to ScholarOne

We recommend making sure that your research interests are detailed and up to date. Use these tips to maximise your chances of being selected:

• Avoid abbreviations
• Use as many keywords as possible: try to use as broad a range of terms as possible, including any synonyms or closely related fields
• Separate each term with a comma, with no unnecessary commentary

Here is an example of a good list of research interests:

magnetic nanoparticle characterization, magnetic particle imaging, magnetic nanothermometer, measuring instruments, weak signal detecting, iron oxide nanoparticles, magnetic nanoparticle thermometer, magnetic nanoparticles, biofunctionalization, dc magnetic field, magnetic fluid, magnetic particle susceptibility imaging, magnetic susceptibility imaging, magnetonanothermometry, phase delay, real-time and quantitative abilities, signal bandwidth, spatial resolution

 

How to submit your reviewer report on ScholarOne

To submit your reviewer report, either click the link in the email you received with the paper attached, or log into your account on ScholarOne. If you have forgotten your log in details, click ‘Reset Password’ on the log in page. This video will take you through the stages of submitting your reviewer report.

Watch this video to find out how to submit your reviewer report on ScholarOne.

 

---

Dr Ibrahim Tarik Ozbolat is professor in the Engineering Science and Mechanics Department of Penn State. He is a specialist in 3D bioprinting, artificial organs, and regenerative medicine and has recently published research in Biofabrication which looks at a new way to generate microgels; High-throughput microgel biofabrication via air-assisted co-axial jetting for cell encapsulation, 3D bioprinting, and scaffolding applications. This was published open access under the transformative agreement with Big Ten Academic Alliance.

Can you tell us about your latest findings?
Our latest study shows a new technique to make larger quantities of microgels in a much easier way. Due to their properties, microgels are gaining immense attention for use in tissue repair and regeneration. Currently, there are several microgel fabrication techniques, but their wide usage is challenged as they are expensive and time consuming.

With our new technique we can produce more microgels which can be used to create self-healing materials, drug-delivery systems and bioinks to assist 3D imaging of human tissues and organs. Our study has the potential to accelerate tissue engineering technologies and improve the quality of life for many people.

Why did you decide to publish the research open access?
I believe that the democratization of scientific knowledge is essential, and one way to accomplish this goal is by making research open to access. By removing barriers to accessing scientific information, we can ensure that everyone, regardless of their background or financial resources, has the opportunity to engage with and benefit from scientific research. Open access publishing is also an excellent way to make scientific information available to a broader audience, including researchers, policymakers, healthcare professionals, and the general public.

What benefits did you see from publishing your work open access?
Publishing our research open access did lead to some surprising outcomes. One of the most notable things that happened was the increased visibility of our work. By making our article freely available, we were able to reach a much wider audience. As a result, we received more downloads and views of our article than we had anticipated. Additionally, some researchers working in the same field reached out with queries or for possible collaborations.

Did the transformative agreement make it easier to publish open access?
Typically, when publishing research is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding agency, it is published on platforms like PubMed. However, the publication process can sometimes be time-consuming, with a delay in online availability. The transformative agreement streamlined the publication process, ensuring that our research was made available online as soon as it was accepted.

You can read the full interview with Dr Ozbolat here.

---

Magnus Jonsson received the Journal of Optics Emerging Leaders Award for his outstanding research, Highly reflective optical nanocavities for structural coloration by combining broadband absorber and Fabry–Pérot effects. It was published open access in Journal of Optics, under the transformative agreement with the Swedish BIBSAM consortium.

How easy was it to publish open access under the transformative agreement?
It was easy and quick, which is important for us so that we use our time for the research and article writing. We have grants that instruct us to share our research findings open access. Publishing open access is rather standard for us, via open access in scientific journals and also by posting preprints.

Did it lead to anyone surprising seeing your work?
Our paper has received significant attention, which is great. Besides researchers, we are sometimes approached by companies that have read about our research and some of them may not have had access to the articles unless they were published open access.

What are the next steps for your research?
We are excited about several directions right now. As direct follow-up on the research on structural colors published in Journal of Optics, we have now managed to make the colors dynamically tuneable, by implementing an electroactive conducting polymer as the spacer layer of the optical cavities.

Why do you think it’s important to be able to publish open access?
Sharing the research results with the community is one of the most important aspects of the whole research process. It is important that other researchers, as well as industry and society, have access to read about the latest findings. Likewise, access to others’ research findings is essential for our own research.