Volunteer to peer review
Our Editors select reviewers based on relevant expertise from a wide and diverse pool of researchers from all over the world. Are you interested in volunteering to be a peer reviewer for the Royal Society journals?
You need to be qualified at least PhD level (or equivalent) in a relevant subject, an active researcher and have published recently in one or more reputable peer reviewed journal.
If you have less experience, there is still the option to co-review (see below) with your supervisor or another colleague – please approach them expressing your interest, so if they get invited to review you can review with them and get recognition.
To volunteer to be a journal reviewer, please fill in this short form.
Once registered you will be considered as a reviewer for manuscripts that are within your research area. Volunteers are flagged within our system but we cannot guarantee that you will be selected as a reviewer for one of our journals. Read our reviewer guidelines here.
Why review for the Royal Society?
Science is underpinned by the support and expertise of peer reviewers. By reviewing, you are:
- contributing to the quality and progression of science
- reciprocating the benefits when others review your papers
- helping with your own research, professional development and profile
If you are invited to review for one of our journals, and are suitability qualified to review the work, please try to say 'yes'. We will give you recognition (if you want it) and full support.
Recognition for reviewers
We share a growing opinion that the assessment of researchers should not just be confined to the Impact Factor of the journal in which they publish. We believe that assessment should be based on a broad range of research outputs including peer review activity. We will therefore make it easy for you to receive recognition for your review work with us by offering:
- Recognition through Publons
Publons records, verifies, and showcases peer review contributions, which can be used in promotion and grant applications. The reviewer gets credit even if the reviews are anonymous and the manuscript is never published. Simply opt-in to Publons when reporting via ScholarOne.
- Recognition by the journal
Six of our journals publish an annual citable article containing the list of reviewers who have opted to receive this recognition.
- Option to sign published reports
Four of our journals (Proceedings A, B, Royal Society Open Science and Open Biology) offer transparency by publishing peer review information (reviewer reports, decision letter and response) alongside published articles. Reviewing in these journals is anonymous by default but reviewers have the option to sign their names to gain recognition. Referee reports and associated information will be made public under an open access licence (CC-BY 4.0) allowing best practice to be readily shared.
A co-reviewer is defined as a researcher - often early in their career - who reviews a manuscript together with a more senior (invited) reviewer (see full policy). There is the opportunity for the senior reviewer to give recognition to the co-reviewer through Publons and where we publish peer review reports by adding their name (provided consent has been given).
Support for reviewers
We recognise that researchers are busy people and we therefore try to make reviewing for our journals a simple, straightforward and rewarding experience.
- Each journal has specific reviewer guidelines available via the 'information for...reviewers' menu
- Supporting data for articles is easy to access
- Reviewer report forms are as concise as possible
- We offer email and telephone support to all reviewers
The Royal Society encourages early-career researchers to get involved in the peer review process. If you require any assistance with your review please feel free to contact the Editorial Office of the journal.
We would recommend new reviewers to take advantage of training materials such as through the Publons Academy, and would recommend that you read our blogs on ‘Tips for good practice in peer review’ and ‘What makes a good or a bad peer review?’.
If you have a question or feedback on how we might enhance the experience of reviewing contact us or the journal which invited you - we are happy to help.