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 manuscript considered for publication, two to 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 anonymous review, where authors do not know who has reviewed or edited the manuscript. As a reviewer, however, you would be expected to declare any competing interests that might relate to the research, the authors or the manuscript.

Reviewers are requested not to directly contact the authors (unless with the permission of the journal).

Process

We start looking for potential reviewers six weeks before an Extended Research Article 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. For the Threaded Publication manuscripts we invite reviewers once the manuscript is delivered and assessed by an editor as ready for peer review. We work closely with authors and reviewers to track delivery dates and allow for workload planning.

As a reviewer, you will be asked a standard set of questions to form the basis of your review and will then be given four weeks to return your comments on the manuscript. Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.

Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal – we welcome the involvement of early career researchers in the review process but this must be agreed in advance, their input acknowledged on the reviewer’s report, and that responsibility for the overall review remains with the senior reviewer.

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 manuscript but it is very rarely necessary.

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

Become a reviewer

Our community of reviewers includes academics, clinicians, practitioners, public health professionals and also members of the public, patients and carers. If you would like to contribute from the public, patient's or carer's perspective, please visit our public and patient involvement pages. Our diverse reviewer community plays a vital part in maintaining and improving the quality of our programmes’ projects and outputs. As a reviewer you can make a significant contribution to the NHS, public health and social care by shaping research and improving practice. Find out more about the role of the reviewer.

The comments provided by reviewers inform our decision-making process and help us identify the most important topics for research, fund the best applications and shape the articles published by the open access NIHR Journals Library, which are available for free search and download.

Why review for the NIHR?

By becoming an NIHR reviewer and reviewing research questions and project applications, you can develop a valuable insight into health research need in the NHS, public health and social care, and the standards of successful applications for funding.
Reviewing research briefs, proposals, and manuscripts can be used as evidence of continuing professional development (CPD). Where appropriate, we provide written confirmation of reviewing tasks that have been completed for inclusion in your CPD portfolio.
For consultant grade medical reviewers, there is the additional attraction that peer review for NIHR is recognised in Clinical Excellence Award submissions.
Our programmes identify the highest impact questions for UK health, so that you know the research you’re reviewing will make a real difference.
We only fund research of the highest scientific standard, so you can increase your insight into best practice in health research.
Publication of most NIHR funded projects is peer reviewed, so there are opportunities to see and comment on the findings and research detail of excellent studies ahead of publication.

How do I become a reviewer?

Register online to join our community of professional reviewers. To join as a member of the public, please see the become a public reviewer page.

Other ways to contribute

Opportunities also arise, around once a year, to join the committees who assess research briefs and proposals. We advertise these opportunities on www.nihr.ac.uk/jobs/, and usually on other relevant sites. All new members are recruited through an open appointment process involving applications and interviews.

Acknowledging reviewers

The expertise and the perspectives of our community of reviewers underpin the practical relevance and scientific quality of NIHR research.

As a gesture of our appreciation, reviewers may be acknowledged on our website by way of a list published by each funding programme of individuals who have completed reviews during the past year. This acknowledgment is optional and can be opted out of at any time.