Finding Article Reviewers
Finding Article Reviewers
The Peer Review Process
Peer review of articles on F1000Research takes place after publication; once the article is published, expert reviewers are formally invited to review under our open and transparent peer review model. To improve the consistency of definitions and terminology in peer review, F1000Research uses the NISO standard terminology for peer review to summarise our peer review process as:
- Identity transparency: All identities visible
- Reviewer interacts with: Editor, other reviewers, authors
- Review information published: Review reports, submitted manuscript, reviewer identities
- Post publication commenting: Open
More information is available on Peer review process for articles section of the How it Works page.
The peer review process for F1000Research is managed by the editorial team, who identify and invite appropriate experts from relevant fields. Authors are also able to suggest reviewers if they wish, and the editorial team check to ensure these reviewers meet the criteria below before they are invited to review.
We provide a reviewer finding algorithm for each submission, which scans the article and reference list to identify researchers who may be suitable to review the article. Authors can suggest appropriate reviewers from this automatically generated list or suggest their own.
To ensure balance and to facilitate the peer review process the editorial team may also suggest suitable reviewers when required.
If your study includes complex statistical analysis or new statistical methods, please ensure that at least one of your initial reviewer suggestions has a proven track record as a statistics expert. Be aware that we may ask you to suggest additional statistics experts as the peer review process progresses.
Authors should not approach reviewers about the peer review process independently, as this has the potential to influence and invalidate their review.
Reviewer Criteria
- Qualified: Reviewers should typically hold a doctorate (PhD/MD/MBBS or equivalent). Exceptions will be made for scholarly disciplines where doctorates are not necessary (e.g. Education, Library Science), or when an individual has a demonstrable public record of expertise. If possible, when a reviewer suggestion is rejected due to lack of qualifications, the editorial team will suggest that their Principal Investigator/Supervisor is invited instead, and the original person could then take the role of co-reviewer.
- Expert: Reviewers should have published at least three articles as lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last five years. In fields where a reviewer’s expertise is not typically measured by their publication record or if the suggested reviewer’s expertise is demonstrable in ways other than their publication record, please provide an explanation of their suitability.
- Impartial: Reviewers should not have any competing interests that can bias their assessment of the article - they should not be close collaborators of authors or be personally, associated with them. For example, a reviewer should not:
- have co-authored with any of the lead authors in the three years preceding publication of Version 1;
- have co-authored with any of the lead authors since the publication of Version 1;
- currently work at the same institution as the authors;
- be a close collaborator with an author.
- Global: For any given article, we require that reviewers are from different institutions. (This does not apply to large, multi-site institutions, such as Max-Planck Institutes or University of California). We also strongly encourage that geographically-diverse reviewers are invited to review, to gain an international perspective on the article.
In cases where we receive multiple reviewer suggestions from the same country, the editorial team can only invite one of these reviewers at a time. Providing a geographically-diverse set of reviewers will help to prevent delays to the peer review process.
If you feel that our standard reviewer criteria are not appropriate for your area of research please do not hesitate to get in touch, and we’ll be happy to discuss this with you.
Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
To help authors identify suitable reviewers, we’ve compiled a list of methods:
- Use the authors of the references cited in your article as a starting point for finding reviewers working in your specific field.
-
Search abstracting and indexing databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science* and Scopus* (or other subject-specific literature databases) for recent articles with specific keywords can help you to identify authors currently working in the same field as yourself, and who may be suitable to review your article.
As an expert in your area of research, you will likely be aware of prominent laboratories whose staff may be suitable to review your articles - try searching their website for potential reviewers. You can also search for specific experts with whom you have no recent collaborations, as they or their postdocs may be suitable to review.
- Try the Journal/Author Name Estimator and other similar tools can help to identify authors who have published related articles.
- Use our Reviewer Finder Tool. This tool analyzes the submission and provides a ranked list of reviewer candidates based on leading authors of related published studies. Authors can access this tool via the 'Suggest Reviewers' link next to submitted and published articles in the Submissions section in My Research. As this is an automatically generated list of potential reviewers, authors must use their own judgement to determine if the suggested reviewers have the appropriate expertise to review the article.
Looking for further information? Read our blogpost “How to find peer reviewers: 5 actionable tips from our experts”, which contains additional information about how to find reviewers for your article.
* These are subscription-based services and may not be available at your institution.
Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
Authors are welcome to suggest additional reviewers on F1000Research, provided that they meet our reviewer criteria. When suggesting reviewers please consider the following guidance:
Do:
-
Make sure suggested reviewers are experts in the relevant subject area
F1000Research will only invite reviewers who have expertise in the field of research covered by the article. Not only does this ensure thorough peer review, but also reviewers are more likely to agree to provide a report when the subject matter is close to their own area of expertise.
-
Try and ensure a global spread of reviewers
For any given article, the reviewers must come from separate institutions and should not be affiliated with the authors’ institutions. We also strongly encourage that reviewers from around the world are invited to review where possible so that a global perspective can be gained for the article, and to ensure that all aspects of the work are reviewed.
-
Ensure reviewers from the algorithm are suitable before approving them
To provide authors who wish to suggest reviewers with a shortlist, each article is scanned by our Reviewer Finder Tool, which automatically provides a list of researchers who have published related articles. Authors can suggest appropriate reviewers from this automatically generated list (which can be accessed via the ‘Suggest Reviewers’ link next to your submitted or published article in My Research), but must use their own judgement to determine if the suggested reviewers have the appropriate expertise to review the article.
-
Discuss with your co-authors
It may be that your co-authors would like to suggest reviewers – only the submitting author is able to provide these, however we welcome suggestions on your other authors’ behalfs. We would also be happy to change the submitting author so that a co-author can submit reviewers directly, please contact the editorial team if you wish to do this.
-
Contact us if you have any questions
If we have rejected a reviewer who you believe to be suitable, or if you have any questions or concerns about our reviewer criteria, we are always happy to discuss. Please email us so that we can explore possible options.
Don’t:
-
Suggest reviewers who have recently closely collaborated with you or your co-authors
We consider this to be a potential conflict of interest. A reviewer should not be based at the same institution as any author, be a close collaborator, or have co-authored with any of the lead authors for three years before the publication of the article. Please note that we make exceptions for cases where researchers have published together on the findings or consensus from a large consortia.
-
Suggest reviewers who do not have the right expertise
The editorial team will not invite reviewers who do not appear to have appropriate expertise. Suggesting inappropriate reviewers can cause significant delays to the peer review process.
-
Contact the reviewers directly
To ensure a fair peer review process is maintained, the editorial team acts as the intermediary between authors and reviewers. By directly contacting the reviewers, authors could not only influence their assessment of the article, but could also dissuade them from reviewing. Please be aware that if evidence of an author coercing reviewers is brought to our attention, we will investigate and take appropriate action.Authors can respond to a peer review report by posting a comment under the report.