The questions reviewers, editors, and institutions actually ask us.
ReviewerOne is the infrastructure layer for peer review — the missing tooling, training, recognition, and community that researchers haven't had until now. It is not a journal submission system. It works alongside the editorial systems publishers already use.
Reviewers use it to manage their workload, train, earn verifiable credentials, and connect with other reviewers. Publishers use it to find better-matched, ethically-trained reviewers. See how it fits together.
Two audiences:
To learn more, see Who we're building for and the For Journals page.
ReviewerOne is currently free to join and access. This means that our workflow tools, training resources, recognition modules, and community access are currently free for individual reviewers. In the future, we may introduce a minimal registration fee for new reviewers.
Absolutely. Senior reviewers use ReviewerOne for the workflow tools, a portable record of their contributions, and to mentor newer reviewers through Mentor Cohorts. The Academy also lets experienced reviewers formalize credentials. See your path.
About 5 minutes. Sign up with email or ORCID, pick your primary discipline, and your dashboard is ready. Complete your profile to unlock further access to peer review workflow tools, Reviewer Academy, and other features.
The Academy is in private beta with select cohorts now, with broader access opening in waves. The fastest way in is the early-access waitlist on the Academy page.
At the moment, the Academy has courses on the following topics:
We are actively working to create and set up more learning courses and guidance on ethics, integrity, bias, and AI in peer review. We will also introduce webinars, discipline-specific modules and templates. See the full curriculum.
That completely depends on how much time you have. Each module in a course could take an average of 6–10 minutes. Beginner level courses take lesser time to complete.
Increasingly, yes. Academy-certified reviewers are surfaced first in our publisher console, and our partner journals actively prefer trained reviewers. Certifications are stamped to your ReviewerOne profile and synced to your ORCID record.
Yes, once you reach L3 (Expert) level. Mentor cohorts pair senior reviewers with novice reviewers. Mentoring programs are structured, time-bound, and recognized on your profile. Read about Mentor Forums.
No. That would be unethical. The Reviewer Assistant uses AI to check citations, ethics statements, plagiarism, retractions, and scope match everything that will reduce the burden of manual checks on you. It then surfaces findings. You lead the evaluation as a reviewer. The AI only assists.
Six structured scans run before your first read: plagiarism, research integrity, scope, novelty, ethical approval, and reference checks. Each one is line-linked to the manuscript and feeds into a structured peer-review report. See the full list.
Reference verification and retraction lookups are near-deterministic. We cross-check against Crossref, PubMed, and ORCID. Plagiarism uses validated similarity scoring. Methodological flags surface issues. The AI will never make a final judgement on your behalf the reviewer decides.
Yes, occasionally — which is why findings always link back to the source paragraph so you can verify in one click. We track precision per check and tune accordingly. False positives are easier to dismiss than false negatives are to catch.
Yes — this is one of its strongest use-cases. The assistant flags technical and formatting issues so your scientific expertise comes through without language barriers.
Yes. Each check is independently configurable from your reviewer settings. Journals can also set defaults for invitations that go through their console.
Currently this takes a few minutes. We are actively working to bring it down to about 2 minutes per manuscript.
Connect your ORCID from your account settings. Every verified review on ReviewerOne is then automatically pushed as a peer-review entry on your ORCID record.
The review itself stays confidential. What gets recorded publicly is the fact that you completed a verified review for a specific journal on a specific date — never the review content or the manuscript identity. You control whether reviewer-name disclosure is enabled per journal.
If the journal participates in our verification network, yes your existing reviewer history can be imported with the journal's confirmation. If not, the record starts from the date you join.
A composite of timeliness, completeness against the structured report, editor-rated usefulness, and adherence to ethics standards. It's never a "ranking" — it's a private quality signal that editors see when shortlisting. You can see exactly what feeds it from your profile settings.
Subject-specific forums, mentor cohorts, and live AMAs with editors. It's moderated — by reviewers and editors, not by AI — and signal-density is the explicit design goal. See how it works.
No. The community is members-only. Reviewers need to be ReviewerOne-verified to read or post.
Most AMAs are members-only, but a handful per year are open and posted on the blog or our LinkedIn page.
Two options: API integration with major editorial systems (Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, eJournalPress, OJS, etc.) for in-context reviewer matching, or standalone use through our editorial console Book a demo to see how the integration would work on your system.
Manuscript keywords are extracted, then cross-referenced against PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and ORCID to score candidate reviewers. Each card shows relevance, publication and citation data, past review activity, conflicts of interest, retraction history, availability, and subject-match.
Journal pricing is volume-based — submissions processed per year. Society journals and small open-access publishers get tiered pricing. We share full pricing on the demo call once we know your scale.
The reviewer network is shared, but every reviewer controls journal-specific availability and Conflict-of-Interest flags. Reviewer activity for a specific journal stays private to that journal.
Standalone use: same week. API integration with an existing editorial system: typically 4–8 weeks depending on the platform and your internal review cycle.
No, and this is a design priority. Reviewer profiles are reviewer-owned. Journals see what reviewers choose to share. The system isn't a surveillance tool — it's a portable identity for the reviewer.
No. Reviewer data is not for sale, full stop. This is a foundational commitment, not a marketing line — it's the only sustainable way to build the trust the system needs.
What you provide (name, email, ORCID, discipline), your review activity (timestamps, completion status, journal — never review content for analytics), and Academy progress. Full breakdown in our privacy policy.
No. Manuscript and review content stay confidential and are not used to train any AI model — ours or anyone else's. The AI Review Assistant runs on the manuscript you're actively reviewing, in your session, and the data isn't retained beyond that.
Yes — one-click from your settings. We retain only what we're legally required to (e.g., verified-review references for audit), and even those are anonymized after 5 years.
Regional data residency: EU reviewers' data stays in EU regions, India in IN, etc. We meet GDPR requirements as the baseline for all reviewers globally.
We typically respond to each query within one business day.