Peer review

Link to Guidelines for editing peer reviews

• ICB does not edit peer reviews beyond removing mechanical errors. Instead, the associate editors will address problematic peer reviews in their decision letter to the author.

  • If there is a single or few incidences of hostile or unprofessional comments, the editors will  provide guidance to the author on how to respond to a hostile or unprofessional review and reference the journal policy that precludes editing the reviews, if applicable.

  • If the peer review is largely hostile or unprofessional in content, the editor will rescind the review and include any valuable feedback that the rescinded review contains as comments from the editor. The decision letter will state that a peer review was rescinded because it did not meet ICB's standards, that the editor comments contains any valuable feedback from the rescinded review, and that these editor comments should be addressed in the authors' response to the peer reviews.

• Resources

  • peer review challenges (leads to another page on this website)

  • peer review tips (leads to another page on this website)

  • peer review guide - slide deck (leads to another page on this website)

  • COPE discussion on bias in peer review (external link)

  • COPE guideline for ethical peer review (external link)

Recommended action

• If there is a single or few incidences of unprofessional comments, the editors will provide guidance to the author on how to respond to a hostile or unprofessional review and reference the journal policy that precludes editing the reviews, if applicable.

• If the peer review is largely unprofessional in content, the editor will rescind the review and include any valuable feedback that the rescinded review contains as comments from the editor. The decision letter will state that a peer review was rescinded because it did not meet ICB's standards, that the editor comments contains any valuable feedback from the rescinded review, and that these editor comments should be addressed in the authors' response to the peer reviews.

• What will happen next:

  • If the peer review contains one or few hostile or unprofessional comments:

    • The assistant editor will draft a rebuttal of such comments that provide guidance on how the author should handle this comment

    • The associate editor's decision letter will include guidance on how to handle particular hostile or unprofessional comments

  • If the peer review is largely hostile or unprofessional: 

    • The assistant or associate editor rescind the review

    • The assistant editor should draft a summary of valuable points raised in the rescinded review, so the associate editor can include those comments in their decision letter in a section "editor comments"

• Peer reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and may not share them without explicit authorization, may not enter any parts of the manuscript into search engines or GenAI tools, such as ChatGPT, for any reason. 

• See also ICB editor webpage on "GenAI" - sub section on "LLM-generated or -supported peer reviews"

• Resources

  • guide on handling undisclosed peer reviewer conflict

  • case 'breach of confidentiality' - suspected theft of intellectual property

  • case 'breach of confidentiality - contacting authors without consent

  • case 'breach of confidentiality - posting confidential information online 

  • case 'breach of confidentiality - reviewer publishes material removed from a manuscript prior to submission

  • case 'breach of confidentiality - sharing confidential information

  • case of 'breach of confidentiality - use of GenAI for writing peer reviews

Recommended action

• Immediately contact the editor in chief and the managing editor about your concern.

• What will happen next:

  • The editor will reach out to the whistle blower to inquire about the possible misconduct.

  • The managing editor will rescind the invitation to review and will invite another peer reviewer.

  • The editor will contact the reviewer in cases of clear peer review misconduct, explaining the journal’s process and next steps.

  • The editor will inform the reviewer's institution, where necessary.