Peer review at IOP Publishing

Find out more about what we do to improve the peer review process for our authors.

Peer review motivations survey

Read the complete report

At the start of 2020 we have carried out a survey to truly understand the reviewer experience and what motivates researchers to review papers. The survey captures reviewers’ attitudes depending on their career stage and geographical location, providing rich and practical insights that will help to improve the efficiency and quality of the peer review process.

Read More

Openness, transparency and experimentation

Learning from new approaches to peer review

Read more about IOP Publishing exploring new peer-review options and what the reaction was from the scientific community. You can also find out more about the first articles published with transparent peer review.

Read More

Peer review excellence: IOP training and certification

A first-of-its-kind peer review certification programme, Peer review excellence: IOP training and certification is co-delivered by top-level physicists and offers a blend of online learning and hands-on peer review experience. Achieving ‘IOP trusted reviewer’ status demonstrates an exceptionally high level of peer review competency.

Read More

Diversity & Inclusion

An ongoing commitment

We believe a quality peer review experience cannot be delivered without committing to diversity and inclusivity as a priority. To help enable this, our Diversity and Inclusion group aims to encourage diversity of reviewers, authors and editors from across the scientific community.

Read More


A dedicated panel

We are one of the few publishers to have dedicated in-house research integrity. The panel consists of staff trained in the very highest standards of publication ethics, and works to support authors, reviewers and our editorial board members. Its main goals are ensuring that our policies and procedures adhere to the COPE guidelines, and resolving complaints and disputes on authorship and other ethical matters. To further support quality in peer review, we are creating a new role dedicated to research integrity and inclusion.

Read More

Continuous improvement

Changing existing systems

As well as larger innovations such as Transparent Peer Review, we are committed to continuous improvement within existing systems. Our staff have the freedom and skills to enable them to solve problems, so they never recur. An example of a small change that provides incremental improvements is the introduction of better instructions for authors on preparing a document for revision. This led to improved quality of revisions and more than 2000 page views per month for guidance on this topic. Read more about our commitment to continuous improvement here. Authors and reviewers can contribute their improvement ideas by emailing

Read More

Open science

Data availability statements

We encourage and support authors to make the data underpinning their articles more accessible. Three journals have trialled a new data policy requiring authors to include a data availability statement with their article, indicating whether data is accessible and if so, where it can be found and under what licensing terms. The policy also strongly encourages authors to share their data. We hope this policy may be able to improve peer review quality through greater transparency and reproducibility.

Read More


Reviewer recognition

We are a long-term Publons development partner, helping to bring quality, transparency and recognition to peer review. We have helped verify over 122,410 reviews in our journals through Publons, crediting more than 20,500 reviewers with recognition for their work. These verifications can be linked to a reviewer’s ORCID profile alongside their research activities. Our partnership with Publons enables other developments such as transparent peer review and our co-review policy.

Read More

Technology and systems

Using industry best practice

We use all available industry best practice systems for ensuring quality, including iThenticate from Crossref to automatically scan each submission for plagiarism. This is used alongside a duplicate submission check on any articles moving through the submission process. Rigorous checks are added to reviewer selection, with an author–reviewer conflict of interest flag enabled through the Publons Reviewer Connect tool. Best practice champions also help ensure potential problems are flagged, relevant reviewers are selected and article checks are thorough.

Quality reviewer reports

Improving report forms

We know our community of authors value the quality of peer review reports, while our reviewers value clear guidelines and the ease of submitting a report. As well as activities related to reviewer recruitment and selection, we continue to improve report forms guided by reviewer, author and board member feedback, with the aim to better guide the reviewer’s critique on the submitted manuscript. We also serve a diverse community and recognise that one size does not fit all when it comes to reviewer reports. Therefore, our forms are tailored to the needs of each community. You can contribute your ideas to improve the reviewer reporting process by emailing

Reviewer awards

Recognising excellence in peer review

Identifying and recognising high-quality peer review is key to maintaining the standards of our journals, and allows us to connect the best reviewers with the right authors. Each year we recognise excellence in peer review through our Reviewer Awards. Our journal editorial teams select the best reviewers of the year based on the quality, quantity and timeliness of reviews. In 2018, more than 1200 reviewers were recognised in this way; and 30 journals selected an individual Reviewer of the Year.

Read More

Our reviewer community

Diverse and dedicated reviewers

Our peer review operation requires a diverse and dedicated reviewer community. We have more than 72,000 unique active reviewers, who have completed over 260,000 reports since 2013. Reviewer profiles are based around a unique ‘research interest’ fields, which allow for more precise reviewer searches compared to narrow keyword filters. In addition to our maintained database, we use external tools and data sources including Web of Science, Scopus and Publons. Furthermore, our Reviewer Engagement Manager helps to shape the future reviewer community and expands our geographic diversity.

Read More

Co-review policy

Recognising early career researchers

Following feedback from reviewers across the world, we launched a co-review policy to enable early career researchers to gain credit for contributing to the review process with their supervisors. Our goal is to expand the diversity of our active reviewer pool, with supervisors ensuring rigorous quality while nurturing the next generation of researchers. Our user research has shown co-review is a common activity in many parts of the world, and the policy formally enables this part of the process.

IOP Publishing Academy

Resources for early career researchers

We are always looking for ways to engage with researchers and guide you through the sometimes complex world of academic publishing. Our Publishing Academy is a collection of educational resources and events to help early career researchers in particular. We regularly host “How to get published” workshops at institutions around the world, or as webinars. By attending one of these workshops, you will learn more about how to choose a journal; how to prepare your paper; the peer-review process; ethical issues and what to do once you have published. Through our Publishing Academy activities, we reached more than 1000 researchers in 2018.

Read More

Transparent peer review

Implementing at scale

There is an increasing demand for more transparency in peer review due to the potential benefits that this could offer. However, open peer review is notoriously challenging for publishers to implement. Discover more about how we worked in partnership with Publons (part of Clarivate) to to deliver an optimal solution for our TPR pilot.

Our peer review operation

Committed to serve the scientific community

We have a unique commitment to the scientific community, with more than 60 staff across our global offices dedicated to managing the peer review process. The goal of our peer review operation is to free up time for researchers to focus on the science, while we take on the administrative aspect of the peer review process. A recent ALPSP paper found the use of journal administrator‐assigned reviewers reduces the editor’s workload and allows them to focus on peer review decisions and strategic planning.

Read More


How we run peer review

Find out how we manage the peer review process at IOP Publishing, with this visual guide. Follow the path a paper takes from submission, through initial checks, review, decisions, revisions and acceptance. You can also see the ways in which we recognise our reviewers for their hard work and dedication.

Read More