Peer review
Peer Review is the impartial and independent evaluation and assessment of research and outputs related to research by a colleague or contemporary with knowledge and/or experience in the field. It is an essential element of research and the self-regulation of professions.
Important decisions about research depend on advice from peers with similar knowledge and experience. Peer review provides expert scrutiny of a project and helps to maintain high standards and encourage accurate, thorough and credible research reportings.
Peer review may involve:
- the assessment of a research grant application
- the selection of material for publication
- the review of the research of an individual or group
- the selection of academic candidates for recruitment or career advancement
- the submission of work for review by others;
Reviewing the work of others
The University recognises that peer review is central to the current mechanism of research assessment. University members should exercise judgement in taking part in peer review and should declare all relevant interests they have in the field as required in the University's guidance.
Those invited to review for the first time are advised to take any training that might be offered, follow the guidance provided by the organisation making the request, acquaint themselves with good practice and consult/discuss with their mentor and/or colleague(s) as appropriate. Where appropriate, reviewers should contribute comments that will be attributed.
Those taking part in peer review should:
- apply rigorous objectivity in all assessments;
- review in accordance with the guidance provided for the process, complete the review as specified and on time;
- respect the confidentiality of any information sent for review and not disclose any information provided, any opinions given, or the details of the invitation to review;
- report any conflicting interests as required by the requesting organisation and University policy;
- not allow vested interests or personal bias to influence their impartial assessment of work to be reviewed in either a positive or negative way;
- only accept assignments for which they have the expertise, returning any which are outside their expert knowledge;
- not take advantage of any new data or privileged information they have had access to during the review process either in the capture of ideas to further their own research and/or activities;
- conduct a fair assessment of the work and not deliberately disadvantage a competitor in the field;
- review objectively work that challenges accepted views, crosses traditional boundaries and/or is wholly innovative;
- be aware that the review may identify practice which falls below good conduct (which might be genuine error or malpractice) and which should be reported as concerns.
Submitting work for review
Researchers should not take actions, directly or indirectly, to influence the review of their own work or that of others, positively or negatively.
Where work is reviewed the authors usually respond to reviewer comments. Authors should accept comments and respond to the factual points made. Where an author suspects an infringement of the principles outlined above this should be reported to the appropriate authority (e.g. journal editor, grant manager).
Where an author considers there might be reasonable grounds for appeal he or she should first discuss the details with colleagues within the University.