ICRP Reviewer Hub

Welcome to the ICRP Hub for Reviewers, where you can delve into the intricacies of the peer review process, access a wealth of free resources, catch up on our latest webinars, explore unique benefits available exclusively to our reviewers, and much more. 

 

Fundamental of Peer Review 
Reviewer Recognition and Rewards
Reviewer FAQs

Joining Our Reviewer Community

We welcome and value applications from those interested in joining our global community of peer reviewers.

Become a Reviewer for ICRP

Conducting Peer Review for ICRP

A thorough reviewer report critically assesses the submission in detail, extending beyond a handful of brief comments. While ICRP does not mandate a specific report structure, we recommend the following format:

  • Summary
  • Major Issues
  • Minor Issues

We encourage reviewers to offer constructive feedback to help authors refine their manuscripts, especially when revisions are suggested. For comments intended solely for the Academic Editor, please include these in the confidential section.

Reviewers should consider various key aspects, including but not limited to:

  • Validity of the research questions
  • Adequacy of the sample size
  • Ethical approval and research ethics
  • Suitability of the methods and study design
  • Appropriateness and clarity of controls
  • Detailed reporting of methods for reproducibility
  • Correct application and reporting of statistical tests
  • Clarity and accuracy of figures and tables
  • Comparison and discussion of the results with previous research
  • Proper citation and discussion of related work
  • Support of the conclusions by the results
  • Acknowledgment of the research limitations
  • Accuracy and completeness of the abstract
  • Clarity and understandability of the language

Reviewers are asked to submit their reports through the manuscript tracking system by the agreed deadline, contacting ICRP if an extension is necessary.

The end goal of the review is to objectively assess the scientific merits of the submission, focusing on the soundness of its methodology and the validity of its conclusions. Reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following actions:

  • Publish Unaltered
  • Consider after Minor Changes
  • Consider after Major Changes
  • Reject

The final decision, however, rests with the Academic Editor.

For a detailed guide to peer review, we invite you to read our Peer Review Checklist.

Download the Peer Review Checklist

Publication Ethics

As a COPE member, ICRP adheres to the highest ethical standards in peer review and publishing. Reviewers should familiarize themselves with COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and report any publication ethics concerns to our Research Integrity team.

See ICRP's Ethics Policy

Maintaining Confidentiality

The peer review process is strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with outsiders. Consultations within one's research group are permitted, provided confidentiality is preserved, and such consultations are disclosed to ICRP or the Academic Editor.

Reviewers will remain anonymous to authors unless they opt to reveal their identity by signing the review report.

Identifying Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline assignments when potential conflicts of interest exist, such as recent collaborations, publications, affiliations, or personal connections with the authors. Any residual conflicts should be declared in the 'Confidential' section of the review form for the editor's consideration.

Reviewers are also encouraged to scrutinize and comment on any conflicts of interest declared by the authors, ensuring full disclosure and transparency throughout the review process.

Publish Your Reviews initiative

As ICRP is part of ASAPBio's Publish Your Reviews initiative, we encourage reviewers to publish their review where an author has opted to make their manuscript available as a preprint. The review can be posted either on the relevant preprint server, or on an independent online platform (e.g. PreReview). We ask reviewers to follow ASAPBio’s Recommendations for Reviewers and not to explicitly state the journal or publisher's name within their published review, nor their recommendation for publication, to protect the confidentiality of the peer review process.

Reporting guidelines

ICRP does not mandate the use of reporting guidelines by authors, however, we encourage reviewers to use relevant reporting guidelines to help assess the submission. The EQUATOR Network provides clinical guidelines, while FAIRsharing list clinical and general science guidelines. We particularly encourage the use of:

  • CONSORT for randomized controlled trials
  • TREND for non-randomized trials
  • PRISMA for systematic review and meta-analyses
  • CARE for case reports
  • STROBE for observational studies
  • STREGA for genetic association studies
  • SRQR for qualitative studies
  • STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies
  • ARRIVE for animal experiments