Who is a reviewer?

Reviewer is independent internationally renowned expert whose role is to assess the extent to which an output selected for peer review complies with the international and national standards of the field and what are its scientific or social benefits.

How is a reviewer established?

  • The reviewers are nominated by the units, by the members of the Research Evaluation Board, Expert Panels, and by the members of Charles University bodies, i.e. The Research Board, The Internal Evaluation Board, and International Advisory Board;

  • The nominated reviewers are approved by the Expert Panel;

  • The list of approved reviewers is registered within the information system;

  • Reviewers are not required to visit Charles University, i.e. their work and communication with the Expert Panels and the University takes place from a distance via online tools, email and information system of the University.

What are the duties of a reviewer?

  • To provide to the Expert Panel, within the given time limit via the relevant section of the information system, the reviews of the outputs he or she was asked to review;

  • To disclose any conflict of interest;

  • To keep confidential the facts he or she becomes aware of in the course of the evaluation;

  • To protect the intellectual property in relation to the outputs submitted to the reviewer for the purpose of review.

What are the outcomes of a review?

Each reviewer is asked to classify the output under scrutiny and to add a brief justification of his or her grade. The classification is as follows:

  • Excellent output, A. An output representing global top quality in terms of originality, importance, academic correctness, or practical application;

  • Very good output, B. An output that is excellent on the international scale in terms of originality, importance, and academic correctness;

  • Average output, C. An output that is standard in terms of originality, importance, and academic correctness;

  • Below average output, D. An output that is irrelevant or weak or does not comply with the essential methodological requirements.

What is the conflict of interest?

See separate article on conflict of interest.