Research does not always sit neatly within a single discipline. Many manuscripts draw on methods, theories, and literatures from multiple fields, reflecting the broader growth of interdisciplinary research across scholarly publishing.
If you have been invited to review a manuscript that is adjacent to your primary area of expertise or overlaps with your field but is not entirely within it, you have a choice to make. You can decline on the grounds that you are not the ideal reviewer. Alternatively, you can accept the review, be transparent about the limits of your expertise, and contribute to the evaluation you are actually well-positioned to give.

Both choices can be right, depending on how far outside your expertise the paper falls. When reviewers restrict themselves to manuscripts that fall squarely within their own field, it can make it harder for editors to find reviewers in interdisciplinary areas. The question worth asking is not whether you are the perfect reviewer, but whether you are a useful one. Here is how you can navigate that judgment confidently.

Assess the extent of overlap or difference between your field and those of the research

Before you decide whether to accept, read the abstract carefully and map where the paper sits relative to your knowledge. There is a meaningful difference between a manuscript that uses methods you know well to address a question from a similar field and one where both the methods and the subject matter are largely unfamiliar.

If you believe that you can engage meaningfully with the majority of the paper, including the methods, the study design, and the validity of the analysis, you likely have enough expertise to provide a useful review. Some domain-specific aspects may still fall outside your range. If the paper is so far from your knowledge that you would be reviewing it as a generalist rather than as an expert in any relevant dimension, declining is the more honest response.

The Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE’s) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers clearly state that reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment.

Be transparent with the editor upfront

Transparency about the scope of your expertise is always the right approach. If you decide to accept a review where your expertise is partial, inform the editor about this when you accept. A brief note explaining which aspects of the manuscript you are well-positioned to evaluate, and which aspects are outside your expertise, will help the editor decide whether your review will be sufficient on its own or whether they should seek an additional reviewer for the areas you cannot cover.

Focus on what you can evaluate reliably

Once you begin reading, be deliberate about where you apply your critical attention. If you are a statistician reviewing a clinical study, your most valuable contribution is likely your assessment of the study design and the statistical analyses, not your evaluation of the clinical significance of the findings. If you are a biologist reviewing an interdisciplinary paper that includes computational modeling, focus on the biological framing and the interpretation of results, and note that the modeling component should be evaluated by someone with relevant expertise.

This is not a limitation but an honest description of what your review covers, and it is genuinely useful information for the editor. A focused review that stays within its declared scope is often more helpful than one that attempts to evaluate areas beyond the reviewer’s expertise.

Be explicit in your report about the boundaries of your evaluation

State clearly, in your report, which sections or aspects of the manuscript you have evaluated and which you have not. Clarifying the limits of your evaluation can make it easier for editors and authors to interpret your comments.

For example:

“My evaluation covers study design, sampling methodology, and statistical analysis. I cannot evaluate the clinical interpretation of the findings and would recommend the editor seek input from a clinician for that aspect of the manuscript.”

Ideally, however, this declaration should first be shared at the invitation stage and repeated when you are submitting your report.

Draw on transferable evaluation skills

Many elements of manuscript evaluation, such as assessing clarity, study design, and the logic of the conclusions, are relevant across disciplines. You can assess whether the research question is clearly stated, the literature review is coherent, the methodology is described in enough detail to be reproduced, the conclusions are proportionate to the evidence, and the paper is written clearly enough to be understood by its intended audience.

What to do when you are genuinely out of your depth

Sometimes, despite good intentions, you start reviewing a manuscript and realize that it is farther from your expertise than the abstract suggested. If this happens, contact the editor, explain the situation, and offer to withdraw as early as possible. In many cases, editors may prefer to reassign the manuscript rather than rely on a review that cannot fully evaluate the work.

We’d like to hear from you

Have you ever reviewed interdisciplinary research or been in a situation where the manuscript covers fields with which you are unfamiliar? How did you handle it? Share your experience in the comments. It is a situation most reviewers encounter at some point, and the community can learn from how others have navigated it.

For more discussions, resources, and perspectives on peer review, join the ReviewerOne Community and connect with fellow reviewers.