Professional conduct is part of scientific quality
A peer-review report is not merely a technical evaluation. Its reliability also depends on independence, fairness, discretion and an accurate account of what the reviewer has examined. An otherwise perceptive critique can damage the editorial process if it is influenced by rivalry, based on inaccessible evidence or delivered in abusive language.
The reviewer acts as an adviser to the editor. Professional conduct requires clear reasoning rather than attempts to control the decision, and it continues from invitation through any revision rounds and the handling of confidential records.
Commitments after accepting an invitation
Acceptance represents a commitment to complete a careful review within the agreed scope and timeframe. If new obligations or unforeseen events prevent completion, notify the editorial office early instead of silently delaying the process.
Do not delegate the assignment or ask a colleague to review an unpublished manuscript without permission. When circumstances change materially, such as discovery of a conflict, discuss the appropriate next step with the editor.
Independence from pressure and desired outcomes
Judge the manuscript against its research question, evidence and the journal’s stated criteria. Neither a prestigious affiliation nor an unpopular result should determine the rigor of assessment.
Avoid pressure from colleagues, employers, commercial partners or scientific competitors. If a person attempts to influence your recommendation, document the relevant circumstances and notify the editor confidentially.
Fairness across authors and research traditions
Apply comparable scientific standards to manuscripts regardless of author identity, nationality, institution, language background or career stage. A reviewer can criticize weak methods firmly without disparaging the people who used them.
Recognize legitimate methodological diversity. When a paper uses an approach different from your own, explain any substantive limitations rather than demanding conformity to personal preference.
Respectful language and actionable criticism
Use precise, professional language that identifies the claim or method at issue, explains why it matters and, where possible, describes what evidence would resolve the concern. Critique the manuscript, not presumed author intelligence or motives.
Avoid sarcasm, ridicule and unnecessarily personal comments. When language editing is genuinely needed to evaluate the science, describe the specific barrier without inferring anything about the authors.
Transparency about expertise and limitations
Evaluate only what you can assess competently. If the central inference depends on specialist statistics, imaging, laboratory techniques or another method outside your expertise, tell the editor.
A qualified but limited review may still be valuable when the scope is explicit. Unsupported certainty, by contrast, can mislead the editor and create unnecessary demands on authors.
Competing interests and continuing disclosure
Disclose relevant financial, professional, academic, institutional and personal relationships according to the journal’s rules. Do not privately decide that a substantial relationship cannot influence your judgment.
Conflicts may become apparent after acceptance, especially when a blinded manuscript becomes recognizable. Inform the editor promptly and follow their decision on continuing or withdrawing.
Confidentiality as an enduring obligation
Treat invitations, manuscripts, supplementary materials, data, review reports and editorial correspondence as confidential under the journal’s review model. Do not share them with unauthorized colleagues or use unpublished findings to advance your own work.
Confidentiality does not end automatically when a review is submitted or a manuscript is rejected. Follow journal rules on storing, deleting and discussing review material after the assignment.
Secure digital practice
Use appropriate device security and controlled storage for downloaded files. Avoid placing manuscript content in publicly shared folders or forwarding sensitive files to personal or group accounts without authorization.
Reviewers handling participant-level information, proprietary methods or sensitive images should use proportionate safeguards. If material appears to have been shared accidentally, notify the editorial office promptly.
Co-reviewing and mentorship
Co-reviewing can support training and complementary expertise when the journal permits it. Seek permission before sharing confidential material, and identify contributors as required by the journal.
The invited reviewer should supervise the process and remain accountable for the submitted report. Secret delegation obscures responsibility and can compromise confidentiality.
Responsible use of artificial intelligence
Do not upload unpublished manuscripts, figures, datasets or editorial correspondence to external AI systems unless the journal expressly permits the workflow and confidentiality conditions are satisfied. An AI service’s convenience does not remove reviewer obligations.
Any permitted assistance requires independent verification. Reviewers remain accountable for scientific claims, citations and recommendations and must disclose AI use when the journal requires it.
Citation integrity and avoiding coercion
Suggest literature because it is relevant to the research question, methods or interpretation. Explain the relevance of essential missing references instead of supplying long lists without justification.
Do not pressure authors to cite your publications, your collaborators or the journal merely to increase citation metrics. The purpose of citation recommendations is scholarly completeness, not personal advantage.
Evidence-based recommendations
Make major comments proportionate to their consequences for validity, reproducibility, ethics or interpretation. Separate decisive scientific concerns from reporting improvements and stylistic preferences.
When the journal asks for a recommendation, ensure it follows from the report’s reasoning. Do not use a recommendation label in place of a clear explanation.
Consistency between public and confidential comments
Comments to authors should normally explain the scientific reasons underlying your recommendation. Confidential comments to the editor are appropriate for sensitive integrity signals, conflicts and other information that cannot responsibly be sent to authors.
Do not use the confidential field for unsupported personal allegations or an unexplained recommendation that contradicts your author-facing report. The editor needs a coherent evidentiary record.
Avoiding inappropriate requests for additional work
Ask for analyses, experiments or clarification only when they address a credible gap in the paper’s claims. Distinguish essential work from interesting extensions that would constitute a new project.
Repeatedly changing expectations can prolong review without improving the paper. When authors provide a reasoned alternative to your proposed approach, assess whether it addresses the underlying concern.
Integrity concerns without premature accusation
Report specific observations that may indicate plagiarism, image irregularities, data inconsistencies, fabricated material or ethical problems through the confidential editorial channel. Distinguish observable anomalies from conclusions about intent.
Do not independently contact institutions, circulate allegations or launch a public investigation. The editor coordinates appropriate assessment under the journal’s integrity procedures.
No misuse of privileged access
Never exploit confidential manuscripts to advance competing publications, grant proposals, patents, commercial interests or public commentary. A reviewer’s privileged access exists solely to support editorial assessment.
If a manuscript overlaps closely with your own unpublished work and threatens your independence, disclose the situation rather than continuing while using privileged information.
Respecting the editorial decision boundary
The reviewer recommends; the editor decides. Editorial decisions may incorporate additional specialist reviews, journal scope and information not available to any individual reviewer.
Do not contact authors directly to pressure them about acceptance or rejection. Disagreement with an editor’s decision does not authorize disclosure of confidential review records.
Professional communication with the editorial office
Use the journal’s designated channel for questions about deadlines, missing files, conflicts, technical limitations or concerns about the review process. Keep messages factual and focused on what action is needed.
If you cannot complete the assignment, say so early. Clear communication allows the editor to protect the timetable without sacrificing scientific scrutiny.
Re-review without moving the goalposts
For revised manuscripts, compare the prior concerns, the editor’s decision, the author response and the revised text. Evaluate whether the scientific problem was resolved, even when the authors choose a different defensible solution.
Avoid adding unrelated demands in successive rounds merely because another review opportunity exists. New concerns may arise legitimately from revisions, but explain why they are material.
Respect for anonymity and review models
Follow the journal’s stated anonymization or open-review procedures. Do not deliberately search for the identity of anonymized authors when that information is unnecessary for evaluation.
If author identity becomes apparent and creates a possible conflict, disclose it. Do not reveal reviewer identities or private editorial discussions outside the permitted model.
Responding to mistakes in your own review
If you discover that a major criticism, citation or calculation in your report was incorrect, notify the editor promptly. Correcting a reviewer error protects the authors and the editorial record.
Do not defend an unsound comment merely to preserve consistency. Professional review includes willingness to revise one’s assessment when better evidence becomes available.
Professional boundaries after the decision
Do not publish confidential correspondence or discuss rejected work without authorization. Follow instructions for deleting or securely retaining review materials and do not assume later publication removes every confidentiality obligation.
If invited to comment on the published work, distinguish public evidence from knowledge obtained solely through confidential peer review.
Recognizing and reporting reviewer misconduct
Improper disclosure, undisclosed conflicts, coercive citation, deliberate delay, discriminatory comments, unauthorized delegation and appropriation of unpublished ideas undermine the process. Concerns should be reported through the journal’s appropriate confidential channel.
Editors should evaluate reports and complaints fairly; reviewers should cooperate with legitimate clarification requests without breaching unrelated confidentiality.
Final conduct audit before submission
Before submitting, confirm that the report reflects your own verified judgment, prioritizes material issues, uses respectful language, contains justified citation requests and places sensitive concerns in the appropriate channel.
Recheck any conflict or AI disclosures, remove unnecessary identifying information and verify that your recommendation is consistent with the reasoning provided.
Treata reviewer conduct standard
Treata expects reviewers to combine scientific diligence with independence, confidentiality, respect, timeliness and accountability. Reviewers should disclose relevant interests, avoid misuse of privileged access, use AI only as permitted and communicate integrity concerns through editors.
Journal-specific reviewer instructions may add procedures or reporting forms. These operate alongside the publisher’s Peer Review, Competing Interests, Artificial Intelligence and Research Misconduct policies.
Reviewer resources
Continue the reviewer pathway
Publisher-wide standards