New Research In
Physical Sciences
Social Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
Biological Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
- Agricultural Sciences
- Anthropology
- Applied Biological Sciences
- Biochemistry
- Biophysics and Computational Biology
- Cell Biology
- Developmental Biology
- Ecology
- Environmental Sciences
- Evolution
- Genetics
- Immunology and Inflammation
- Medical Sciences
- Microbiology
- Neuroscience
- Pharmacology
- Physiology
- Plant Biology
- Population Biology
- Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
- Sustainability Science
- Systems Biology
For Reviewers
PNAS Author Center
2018 Reviewers
The PNAS editors would like to thank all the individuals who dedicated their considerable time and expertise to the journal by serving as reviewers in 2018. Their generous contribution is deeply appreciated.
Peer Reviewer Instructions
PNAS relies on the time and expertise of volunteer reviewers to maintain its high editorial standards. We look to reviewers to help PNAS ensure the following in a submitted paper:
- Research is well designed and executed.
- Presentation of methods will permit replication.
- Data are unambiguous and properly analyzed.
- Conclusions are supported by data.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Peer reviewers also have important responsibilities to authors, editors, and readers. Please consider them carefully.
Confidentiality
Material under review is a privileged communication that should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the designated review process unless necessary and approved by the editor. If you wish to consult a colleague for assistance with the review, please ensure they are free of any competing interest and agree to abide by PNAS policies. Reviewers may not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and may not use the knowledge of manuscript content for any purpose unrelated to the peer-review process. Although it is expected that the editor and/or reviewers will have access to the submitted material, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will remain strictly confidential. The review process is conducted anonymously for all submissions, except NAS members’ own contributions where the reviewers are known to the member author and their names are published. Reviewers are encouraged to keep their identities from outsiders or members of the press. If you are unsure about the policies for enlisting the help of others in the review process, contact PNAS.
Constructive Critique
Besides giving authors insight into deficiencies in the submitted work, reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, present negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed. Reviewers should explain and support their judgment so that editors and authors may understand the basis of the comments. Any statement that an observation or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by a relevant citation. Reviewers should alert PNAS immediately if they have concerns about ethical issues (such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, or data fabrication or falsification) or concerns that release of the paper may pose a danger to public health, safety, and security (see Dual Use Research of Concern).
The purpose of peer review is not to demonstrate the reviewer’s proficiency in identifying flaws. Reviewers should identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help authors resolve weaknesses in the work. Reviewers should respect the intellectual independence of authors and avoid personal remarks in the review. Although reviews are confidential, all comments should be courteous and capable of withstanding public scrutiny. (See also “How to write a thorough peer review” at www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06991-0.)
Competence
Reviewers who realize that their expertise in the subject of the article is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Although reviewers need not be expert in every aspect of the content, the assignment should be accepted only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment.
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 paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on its relevance to PNAS’s scope and purpose.
A reviewer should not take scientific, financial, personal, or other advantage of material made available through the privileged communication of peer review, and should make every effort to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of information obtained through the review process.
Competing Interest
To the extent possible, the peer-review process should minimize actual or perceived bias on the reviewer’s part. If reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should decline to review a paper or discuss their concerns with PNAS prior to completing their review (see competing interest policy).
Timeliness and Responsiveness
Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and completing the review within the requested time frame. These guidelines are adapted from the Council of Science Editors White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.
Reviewer Responsibilities
To Authors
- Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with rationale for your opinion.
- Provide your review as soon as possible within 10 days. If you cannot do so, please contact PNAS.
- Indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
- Avoid personal comments or criticism.
- Refrain from direct author contact without the editor’s permission.
- Maintain the confidentiality of the review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper without permission from PNAS.
To Editors
- Alert the editor to any potential personal or financial competing interest you may have and decline to review when the possibility of a competing interest exists (see "Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers").
- Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
- Avoid comments to authors about acceptance or rejection of the paper.
- Note any ethical concerns, such as substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published article or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.
To Readers
- Ensure that published articles meet PNAS standards.
- Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
- Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.
- These guidelines are adapted from the Council of Science Editors White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.
Reviewers of NAS Member Contributed Articles
Since January 2017, the administrative aspects of the review process for Contributed articles have been handled by PNAS and reviews must be submitted through the online submission system.
The names and institutional affiliations of all reviewers of Contributed papers are included on the published article.
[09/19]