Reviewer Resource Center
Tools for Peer Review
ORCiD Improves Peer Review
In the same way that unique ORCiD identifiers (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) have become a standard by which authors can simplify research workflows and ensure correct attribution of their manuscripts, grant applications, preprints, funding reports, bibliography maintenance, and more, ORCiD is now being used in one of the most fundamental components of the research lifecycle: peer review. The work of peer reviewers often goes unrecognized due to anonymity; however, by using your ORCiD ID, you can raise the visibility of your efforts and contributions. Register for ORCiD and look for more communications from us on integrating ORCiD identifiers in the Editorial Manager peer review process.
Claim CME for completed Peer Review
The Endocrine Society is accredited by the Accreditation Council on Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The Endocrine Society designates each manuscript review as an educational activity for a maximum of 3 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ per review; a reviewer may claim up to 15 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ per year. Additional information about how to claim CME credits is provided during the review process.
Follow these tips in peer review
As a reviewer, we urge you to keep in mind these tips as they will help effectively streamline peer review and make the process easier for you, our authors, and our editors.
- Respond promptly to invitations and observe timelines.
- Treat the author with courtesy, respect, fairness and professionalism.
- Comment on the performance, not the person.
- Be specific, objective and constructive in your reviews.
- Focus on how the argument is supported (or not), rather than whether you agree or disagree with it.
- Raise objections or ask for explanations only to clarify and to suggest ways of strengthening the argument.
- Comment on specific examples of strengths and problem areas.
- Aim to help the author improve future work, as well as the current submission. For example, if the author uses outdated or inexact terminology, provide guidance on best practices.
- Respect the confidentiality of peer review and do not reveal any details of the content or review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond the content that is published and/or produced.
- Declare all potential conflicts of interest up front.
- Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence (AI) tools when evaluating a manuscript. When information about the content of a manuscript is provided to a Large Language Model or similar AI tool, the confidential nature of peer-review is compromised. Moreover, these tools cannot substitute for the expert opinion and judgement that we seek from reviewers.
