Skip to content

Peer Review

Peer Review plays an important role in helping to validate research, establish methods by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities among researchers (Elsevier, 2016). There are many types of Peer Review, with the single blind review method being the most traditional and common method used for publication purposes.

At UniSQ, we encourage peer review in all aspects of teaching and research, including ethics applications (mandatory), grant applications and research outputs.

UniSQ Statement on Peer Review  

UniSQ recognises the importance of peer review and is committed to encouraging and supporting UniSQ Researchers to participate in the process. That encouragement extends to participation as an expert or generalist reviewer both within the University and to Australian and international peer review processes. UniSQ expects Researchers to engage with the process by having their work peer reviewed. This includes ensuring that all applications submitted for research ethics approval, funding and publication to have undergone a peer review process prior to submission.  

Peer review takes on many forms but requires both experts in areas of research and generalist readers (in associated or more generalised fields of research) to provide clear, unbiased, timely and considered review of material submitted for publication, grants, promotion and other forms of public release. Normally a peer review process requires at least three reviewers. Peer reviewers are often asked to comment on the academic quality, relevance, coherence and financial viability of applications and/or be able to rank the review material against selection criteria.  

UniSQ recognises that one important aspect of peer review is the discovery of apparent deviations from the principles of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018). Examples include double publication, incorrect and misleading statements, fabrication, plagiarism and fraud. Where a potential breach of the Research Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is raised it is handled in accordance with the Research Code of Conduct: Management of Potential Breaches Procedure.

Responsibilities of UniSQ Researchers

UniSQ encourages all UniSQ Researchers to participate in, and support, the peer review process. In doing so, those who agree to act as peer reviewers must:  
  • Be fair and timely in their review;
  • Act in confidence and not disclose the content or outcome of any process (to those other than the author/s) in which they are involved;
  • Ensure they are informed about, and comply with, the relevant criteria;
  • Declare all conflicts of interest, including perceived conflicts of interest, which may influence the peer review process;
  • Give proper consideration to research that challenges or changes accepted ways of thinking; 
  • Not take undue or calculated advantage of knowledge obtained during the process; and
  • Be aware of their obligations under various grant Funding Agreements as to the requirement to undertake peer review when requested by Funding Body (for example, NHMRC, ARC).  
Taking into consideration the field of research and the number of recognised experts within the field, reviewers should not agree to participate in specialist peer review outside their area or level of expertise. In instances where this does occur, UniSQ Researchers should declare their limitations. When asked to participate as a generalist reader, UniSQ Researchers should be aware that they need a general level of awareness and understanding of the field involved.  

UniSQ encourages and expects that HDR supervisors assist their students (as an essential part of research training) in developing the skills and responsibilities involved in peer reviewing and appreciate their obligation to participate in this scholarly activity.  

Record of Peer Review  

Researchers have a responsibility to engage with the University's Peer Review process, especially before submitting applications for funding, ethical approval, or publication.

A record of Peer Review engagement may be captured through email, letters or using a Peer Review Checklist. A copy should also be retained by the peer reviewer for their own record.

The record of peer review should confirm that: 

  • research questions and/or hypotheses are appropriate;
  • research design and methods are appropriate to achieve the research aims;
  • data collection and analysis methods are clearly described and justified;
  • research team and supervisors are appropriately qualified and have relevant experience and expertise;
  • research aims can be realistically achieved within the proposed time-frame and available resources; and
  • any ethical issues have been identified and addressed, including plans for ethics approval.

Peer review checklists

Please note that the peer review process is mandatory for both Human Ethics and Animal Ethics submissions. Each type has a specialised checklist that must be used instead of the standard Peer Review Checklist. 

For further details about the mandatory peer review process, please refer to the Human Ethics and Animal Ethics pages respectively.