How to be an ethical peer reviewer

Peer review is central to how research is evaluated, refined, and ultimately shared with the world. It is the process that helps editorial offices identify manuscripts that meet their quality benchmarks, enables authors to prepare well-rounded manuscripts, and reassures readers that the published information has been scrutinized by knowledgeable peers. Despite this, the responsibilities associated with this role are not always clearly articulated.  

Guidance for reviewers is usually communicated through the Instructions for Reviewers” or “Peer Review Guidelines” section of a journal. While these instructions are important, they can be perfunctory, leaving gaps in how reviewers understand their role and ethical responsibilities. In addition to commenting on the content of a manuscript, peer reviewers also have several ethical obligations. A more explicit approach to ethics will help clarify that peer review is as much about recommending acceptance or rejection as it is about upholding the integrity of scholarship itself. 

What authors, editors, and readers deserve from peer review

At its core, peer review is about ensuring fairness. Authors deserve detailed, constructive feedback that is based on respectful and objective engagement with their work. Editors expect reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest, respect timelines, and provide assessments grounded in evidence rather than bias. Readers, who depend on published findings, expect that what reaches them has been rigorously vetted, not only for novelty and quality but also for ethical soundness. So, how can peer reviewers follow the principles of ethical peer review?  

1. Disclose any (and all) conflicts of interest

The first responsibility of a reviewer is to know when they are not the right person to evaluate a manuscript owing to a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest can take many forms, such as direct competition with the authors, recent collaborations, belonging to the same institution, or even personal disputes. In some cases, conflicts could be more subtle and difficult to identify: bias toward one’s own theoretical framework, a preference for certain methodologies, or assumptions shaped by geography, language, or institutional prestige. Accepting a review in such cases could skew the evaluation. An ethical reviewer is transparent about these limitations and either declines the review invitation or discloses the situation to the editor, who can then decide whether the review can still proceed fairly. 

2. Ensure confidentiality

A manuscript submitted to a journal is not yet part of the public domain (unless it’s a preprint). It is entrusted to reviewers for evaluation. This trust means that reviewers must treat it as confidential. Sharing the manuscript with colleagues without permission, discussing it outside the review process, or using its ideas or data before publication violates this trust. Confidentiality extends to involving junior colleagues in the process. While co-reviewing can be an excellent training opportunity, it must be done transparently, with the journal’s knowledge and consent. Ethical review means protecting authors’ intellectual property as carefully as one would safeguard one’s own work. 

3. Take responsibility for the review and give credit where it is due

Reviewing is scholarly labor. It requires time, expertise, and judgment. While most accept this as part of their professional duty, recognition matters. Sometimes, senior researchers accept review invitations but enlist a trainee to perform the review, without notifying the editor. The trainee invests the effort, but their name is never recorded. This practice of “ghost peer review” erases their contribution and leaves journals unaware of who is providing authors with feedback. Proper credit, whether through acknowledgment programs, reviewer databases, or transparently naming co-reviewers, reinforces the value of peer review effort and encourages early-career researchers to engage responsibly with the process. 

4. Provide constructive criticism

At the core of peer review lies constructive feedback. A robust peer review does more than point out flaws; it offers solutions, identifies strengths, and helps authors improve their work. Ethical reviewers distinguish between critical evaluation and destructive commentary. They do not demand excessive, irrelevant revisions to delay a competitor, nor do they dismiss a paper with vague comments without offering an explanation. Instead, they ground their critique in evidence and point to specific weaknesses in methods, gaps in data, or issues in presentation. They also highlight what the manuscript does well. The goal is to help produce a stronger, clearer, and more reliable piece of research. 

5. Be courteous

Courtesy may sound like a minor point, but tone can make or break the impact and usefulness of a review. Authors are far more likely to act on feedback that is delivered respectfully, even when it is highly critical. Conversely, reviews that belittle or attack the author undermine the spirit of scholarly exchange. Ethical peer reviewers keep their comments professional, avoid sarcasm or hostility, and remember that there is a human being behind the manuscript. Courtesy also extends to timeliness: returning a review on schedule is a sign of respect for authors who are waiting and for editors who are managing heavy workflows. 

Why ethical awareness matters

Ethical peer review safeguards trust. When reviewers cut corners, deliver perfunctory reports, miss deadlines, or allow their bias to shape their judgment, they weaken the publishing ecosystem. Conversely, when peer reviewers embrace their responsibilities with seriousness and respect, they elevate not just individual papers but the credibility of the entire scientific record. More importantly, they treat authors and manuscripts with the respect they deserve.  

Do you have any more tips to share with fellow peer reviewers? Share them in the comments below.