Role: Peer reviewer
Role Description
Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by individuals who are usually not part of the editorial staff of the given journal. Because unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including legal research and practice, peer review is an important extension of the legal process.
The value of peer review facilitates a fair hearing for a manuscript among members of the academic community. More practically, it helps editors decide which manuscripts are suitable for their journals. Peer review often helps authors and editors improve the quality of writing and reporting.
Journals may differ in the number and kinds of manuscripts they send for review, the number and types of reviewers they seek for each manuscript, whether the review process is open or blinded, and other aspects of the review process. For this reason and as a service to authors, journals should publish a description of their peer-review process.
Journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In most circumstances, at least 2 reviewers are invited to evaluate an article. In cases of controversy or disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited or one of the journal’s editors might give an evaluation. More than 3 reviewers are sometimes used if reviewers from several fields are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of a paper.
In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, peer reviewers have important responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.
Peer-reviewer Responsibilities Towards Authors- Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion.
- Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise and relevant, and rating the work’s composition, legal accuracy, originality and interest to the journal’s readers.
- Avoiding personal comments or criticism
- Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.
Peer-reviewer Responsibilities Toward Editors
- Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner
- Alerting the editor about any potential personal conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility exists
- Complying with the journal’s expectations for the scope, content and quality of the review.
- Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work.
- Determining the legal merit, originality and scope of the work, indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection.
- Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms.
- Refraining from direct author contact in respect of the piece of work.
Peer-reviewer Responsibilities towards Readers
- Ensuring that the methods are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study, if desired.
- Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other researchers.
Peer Review Process
Reviewer Selection
Editors choose reviewers whose expertise most closely matches the topic of the paper and invite them to review the paper. The editors also consider the number of articles sent to a reviewer so as not to overburden anyone expert. Ideally, the reviewer selection process and the journal’s internal policies address the issue of potential bias by excluding reviewers from the same institution as that of the author(s) and by asking reviewers to disclose any potential conflict of interest. In the case of the Sunderland Journal of Law and Criminology, reviewers from the same friendship groups will be excluded from reviewing each other’s work. This can typically be called “bias screening” and the reviewer is blinded to the author(s). The reviewers will never know the identity of the authors or their affiliation.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Confidentiality
Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless approved by the editor in chief. Material submitted for peer-review is a privileged communication that should be treated in confidence. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted articles and should not use the knowledge of their content for any purpose unrelated to the peer review process.
Although it is expected that the editor and reviewers will have access to the material submitted, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will remain strictly confidential.
Constructive Critique
Reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed. Anything less leaves the author with no insight into the deficiencies in the submitted work. A reviewer should explain and support his or her judgment clearly enough that editors and authors can understand the basis of the comments. The reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been previously reported be accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the editor when he or she becomes aware of duplicate publication. The purpose of peer review is not to demonstrate the reviewer’s proficiency in identifying flaws. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. Although reviews are confidential, all anonymous comments should be courteous and capable of withstanding public scrutiny.
Competence
Reviewers who realise that their expertise is limited, have a responsibility to make their degree of competence in the subject matter clear to the editor. Reviewers need not be expert in every aspect of an article’s content, but they should accept an assignment only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment. A reviewer without the requisite expertise is at risk of recommending acceptance of a submission with substantial deficiencies or rejection of a meritorious paper. In such cases, the reviewer should decline the review.
Impartiality and Integrity
Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the article’s merit, and originality, as well as on the relevance to the journal’s scope and mission, without regard to race, ethnic origin, sex, religion or citizenship of the authors. Reviewers at all times must display professional integrity and lack of bias.
A reviewer should not take scientific, financial, personal or other advantage of material available through the privileged communication of peer review, and every effort should be made to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of information obtained through the review process. Potential reviewers who are concerned that they have a substantial conflict of interest should decline the request to review and/or discuss their concerns with the editor.
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
As far as possible, the review system is designed to minimise actual or perceived bias on the reviewer’s part. If reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of interest to the editor and ask how best to address it.
Timeliness and Responsiveness
Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review and submitting it in a timely manner. Failure to do so undermines the review process. Every effort should be made to complete the review within the time requested. If it is not possible to meet the deadline for the review, then the reviewer should promptly decline to perform the review or should inquire whether some accommodation can be made to resolve the problem.
Examples of Reviewer Impropriety
- Misrepresenting facts in a review
- Unreasonably delaying the review process
- Unfairly criticizing a competitor’s work
- Breaching the confidentiality of the review
- Proposing changes that appear to merely support the reviewer’s own work or hypotheses
- Making use of confidential information to achieve personal or professional gain
- Using ideas or text from a manuscript under review
- Including personal criticism of the author(s)
- Failing to disclose a conflict of interest that would have excluded the reviewer from the process
Rewarding Reviewers
It is appropriate to publicly thank reviewers for their generous volunteer efforts. This takes the form of a published list of reviewers that appears in the journal on a regular basis.
Peer-Review Person Specification
This document sets out the minimum and preferred requirements for potential peer reviewer candidates. These requirements are used when shortlisting candidates, and any evidence of meeting these requirements is assessed from the candidate’s CV and covering letter. When completing the covering letter, it is suggested that candidates refer to the requirements set out below.
Essential
Desirable
Qualifications
1
Must be enrolled on a Law or Criminology programme within the University of Sunderland.
*
2
Evidence of any certificates or awards relevant to the Programme of Study.
*
Experience and Knowledge
3
Have completed at least one traditional academic piece of written coursework.
*
4
Have completed an assessment such as a Dissertation, Journal Article or Case Commentary.
*
5
Have successfully passed one core module required for their relevant programme of study.
*
Learning and Research
6.
Effective communication style and interpersonal skills.
*
7.
Ability to conduct academic research in a chosen area of Law or Criminology.
*
8.
Ability to adhere to the assurance of academic quality and standards.
*
9.
Ability to develop and use effective, flexible and innovative approaches to academic research.
*
10.
Willingness to engage in quality knowledge/research construction and knowledge/research dissemination
*
Personal Development
11.
Ability to reflect on own skills and knowledge, and to seek opportunities to develop
*
12.
Open-mindedness and willingness to learn from other peers.
*
13.
Ability to manage time effectively.
*
Successful Candidates
Editor in Chief, Zach Leggett, will notify successful and unsuccessful students who have applied via their University of Sunderland student email address within three weeks of the application deadline.
Submission of the CV and covering letter will be awarded on meeting the requirements of the role profile and person specification above. Applications will be considered via a panel procedure consisting of the members of staff on the editorial board. If unsuccessful, the Editor in Chief, Zach Leggett, will provide feedback and how to improve. This will enable students to apply for the next round of peer-review applications in the following academic year.
Zach will arrange a session on welcoming the students to the Sunderland Journal of Law and Criminology. This training session will be compulsory for those involved in peer-reviewing.
Students will be notified in their training of confidentiality and will have to sign a ‘Confidentiality Declaration’ and will receive a copy of the Journal’s Code of Conduct. Failure to comply with the Code will result in being removed from the post of a peer reviewer.
The tenure of a peer-reviewer is for one issue only. If students enjoy the role and would like to be involved again, they will have to apply through the same process in the next academic year.
Depending on the amount of submissions received for possible publication, students will receive at least two manuscripts to review. Time for review will be considered alongside submission deadlines for student work on their respective Law and Criminology programmes.
Applications must be sent to Zach Leggett at lawjournal@sunderland.ac.uk by 5pm on Friday 12th February 2024.
