Best Practice Guidance for Reviewing
Introduction:
This guidance is intended to support reviewers in providing fair, respectful, and constructive feedback on submissions. A submission refers to any piece of work submitted for assessment, including proposals, applications, or written outputs, depending on the review type. Whether you are an experienced or new reviewer, these best practices are here to help guide you and ensure a consistent and fair review process.
Before accepting a reviewing assignment
Expertise
Submissions may be technical or non-technical in nature, and it is okay to review a submission in a field that is not your primary area of expertise. A robust review process should always include multiple reviewers per submission to ensure a range of perspectives and a balanced evaluation. Your contribution is valuable - especially in assessing the clarity, structure, and relevance to a wider audience.
However, it is important to reflect on whether you can assess the submission fairly and responsibly. If you choose to proceed with a review where your confidence is limited, be transparent with the reviewing committee about your level of expertise. Stay open to feedback and the perspectives of others on the committee to ensure a fair and constructive process.
Preparation
Before you begin, carefully read all guidance specific to the review process, including expectations, criteria, and deadlines. Understanding what is being asked of reviewers will help ensure consistency and fairness across submissions. Each submission represents significant time and effort by the authors. Before accepting a review, make sure you have sufficient time to complete it thoughtfully and within the deadlines.
Conflicts of Interest
Declare any conflicts of interest as early as possible. This helps to maintain the integrity of the review process, and allows time to find alternative reviewers if needed. We follow the UKRI definition of a conflict of interest, which states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual’s ability to exercise judgment or act in one role is, could be, or is seen to be impaired or otherwise influenced by their involvement in another role or relationship.
All reviewers and committee members should familiarise themselves with this definition and disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts before the review process begins. If a conflict arises during the process, it must be reported immediately to the team leading the review process.
Completing a reviewing assignment
A high-quality review should be constructive, balanced and respectful. Aim to:
- Summarise the submission and give your overall impression,
- Highlight the strengths of the work,
- Identify weaknesses or limitations clearly and objectively,
- Offer actionable suggestions to improve the submission,
- Respond to specific review prompts (e.g. recommend for accept/reject)
Avoiding bias
Be fair and impartial. Support all feedback, positive or negative, with clear reasoning and evidence from the submission. This will help to ensure personal preferences or assumptions do not influence your judgement.
Etiquette
Use respectful, professional language throughout your review. Phrase critical comments constructively, focusing on how the submission could be strengthened. Avoid dismissive, vague, or overly harsh remarks.
Treat both the submitters and fellow reviewers with kindness, professionalism and respect. It’s encouraged to give feedback and raise questions to other reviewers to help reach the most appropriate and fair recommendation for the submission. So, be open to these discussions!
Timeliness
Please aim to complete your review by the stated deadline. Late reviews can delay the overall decision-making process and affect other reviewers and applicants. If you anticipate a delay, inform the team leading the review process as early as possible.
Confidentiality
Submissions and discussions during the review process are confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use the content outside the review context, even after the process concludes.