Journals Library

For reviewers

Our external reviewers are usually sourced from our extensive database of experts, from author suggestions, or from peer-to-peer recommendations.

Typically, for each research report considered for publication, four reviewers are chosen by the NIHR Journals Library Editors to provide expertise in different areas relevant to the research topic and project.

The Journals Library has a system of single blind review, where authors do not know who has reviewed or edited the final report of their research. As a reviewer, however, you would be expected to declare any competing interests that might relate to the research, the authors or the final report.

Process

We start looking for potential reviewers six weeks before a final report is due from its authors. Potential reviewers are emailed with the details of the project and asked to confirm whether or not they are available to carry out the review. We work closely with authors and reviewers to track delivery dates and allow for workload planning.

As a reviewer, you would be given four weeks to return your comments on the report.

Your comments would then go to the Journals Library Editors along with the other reviewers’ comments for review, before being passed back to the authors along with the Editors’ comments. Generally, reviewers’ comments are sent back verbatim to authors.

The authors are given four weeks to make the required changes. Occasionally, you could be asked to re-review a report but it is very rarely necessary.

An online management information system is used to manage the review process. Full instructions will be provided.

The review process

Peer review process

Support for reviewers

If you have been assigned as a reviewer for one of our NIHR Journals Library reports please read our step-by-step guide to completing a reviewer task on the MIS.

Get involved

If you are interested in registering as a reviewer, please visit the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies (NETS) become a reviewer page.