2023 Reviewers and Guest Editors
The PNAS editors would like to thank all the individuals who dedicated their considerable time and expertise to the journal by serving as reviewers and guest editors in 2023. 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.
Reviewers must adhere to the NAS Policy on Discrimination, Harassment, and Bullying for Participants in Academies Activities.
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 or trainee for assistance with the review, please ensure they are free of any competing interest, agree to abide by PNAS policies, and note their name in the appropriate field in the review form. 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. Reviewers may not submit any manuscript or related materials, including their own comments about the work, to any artificial intelligence (AI) software, such as ChatGPT. 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; negative critiques are not obligated. Reviewers should identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help authors resolve weaknesses in the work. Suggestions that are beyond the scope of the current work and should be considered for future research should be explicitly stated as such. 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. Reread comments aloud to assess tone and consider whether you would appreciate the review and find it constructive. (See also Nature's “How to write a thorough peer review.”) PNAS reserves the right to edit review comments that may impede constructive discussion of a manuscript or reveal confidential information.
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. Do not discount the science because of poor language. Reviewers should be mindful of unconscious bias toward gender, race/ethnicity, and country of origin.
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 Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.
Additional tips for reviewing
- Read the manuscript multiple times in advance of the deadline.
- Create a standardized list of questions for every manuscript review.
- Use gender inclusive language (they/them) in review documents.
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 within the timeframe agreed upon at acceptance of the invitation. If you require additional time, 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.
- Provide comments to the authors that are constructive and courteous in tone and contribute to a productive discussion of the manuscript.
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 Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.