iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Early-career researchers may help write a supervisor’s peer-review report without being identified to the journal, leaving their contribution uncredited. In the terminology of a 2019 study, that undisclosed co-reviewing is “ghostwriting.” It is different from reviewer anonymity: the journal can know who contributed even when reviewers’ identities are not made public.
Before sharing a confidential manuscript or drafting a report, check the journal’s reviewer instructions and use its approved process to disclose any co-reviewer to the editor. Policies differ by journal; a supervisor’s invitation does not automatically authorize an undisclosed collaborator.
What does “ghostwriting” mean in peer review?
McDowell and colleagues used “ghostwriting” to mean an early-career researcher contributing to a review without being named to the journal’s editorial staff. The issue is disclosure to the journal, not whether the journal later publishes reviewer names. A journal may keep reviewer identities confidential while still being told who helped assess the manuscript.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
That distinction matters because co-reviewing can be a legitimate training activity when the journal permits it and the contributor is disclosed. The problem is representing a report as solely the invited reviewer’s work when another person substantially contributed ideas or text.
#1 Best Overall
- Author & Edition: Written by Paul J. Silvia; this is the second edition (2018) of the popular guidebook.
- Purpose: Offers practical strategies to help academics overcome barriers to writing and increase productivity.
- Audience: Targeted at students, professors, researchers, and other academics across disciplines.
- Content Highlights: Addresses common excuses, bad writing habits, and provides methods to write, submit, and revise journal articles, books, and proposals.
- New Features in 2nd Edition: Updated tips for academic writing and a new chapter on writing grant and fellowship proposals.
What did the 2019 study find?
McDowell et al.’s 2019 article combined a literature review with a survey. The authors identified 36 articles on early-career researcher involvement in peer review; most covered co-reviewing as training, and none addressed ghostwriting in detail. In the survey, about three quarters of respondents said they had co-reviewed a manuscript, and 95% considered co-review beneficial.
Responses also showed a clear distinction between disclosed collaboration and concealed contribution:
Rank #2
- About half of survey respondents said they had ghostwritten a peer-review report.
- 81% said ghostwriting was unethical, while 82% thought identifying co-reviewers to the journal was valuable.
- 73% considered disclosed co-review ethical.
- 74% agreed that people contributing ideas or text should be included as co-authors of the review, and 82% valued having their name added for recognition.
These are findings about respondents to that survey, not estimates of all researchers or a current prevalence rate. The study’s figures describe reported experiences and opinions at the time of the survey.
Can I co-review a paper with my supervisor?
Possibly, but permission and procedure depend on the journal. The invited reviewer should check the journal’s instructions before sharing the manuscript or involving a colleague. Some journals provide an explicit co-review workflow; others may require the editor’s approval or may not allow co-review at all.
Rank #3
IOP Publishing, for example, says invited reviewers can request co-review through the link in the invitation, provide the colleague’s details, and follow the journal’s workflow. Its guidance asks that all contributors be known to editorial staff. It also warns that board members should not co-review with a colleague where this could create confidentiality problems. These are IOP’s procedures, not a universal rule for other publishers. Read IOP Publishing’s co-review guidance.
Nature Computational Science described a co-review initiative in an editorial published 28 May 2026, and Nature Ecology & Evolution described a recently formalized scheme in an editorial published 5 August 2026. These examples show that formal routes exist, but do not establish one policy across Nature journals or publishers. Consult the live instructions for the specific journal handling the paper.
How do I get credit for peer reviewing?
“Credit” can mean different things, and one form does not guarantee another. Check which recognition the journal actually offers before accepting or beginning a co-review:
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →- Disclosure to the editor: the journal’s editorial staff know who contributed. This is the essential first step for transparent co-review.
- Public recognition: the journal may name reviewers or acknowledge contributions publicly, subject to its policy and confidentiality arrangements.
- Third-party record: a journal may offer to record a review through a recognition service. IOP says co-reviewers can receive Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service recognition; however, only the report submitter receives an evaluation of the report if they opted in.
IOP’s guidance acknowledges the underlying concern directly: “At IOP Publishing, we are aware that early career researchers and PhD students will occasionally write reviewer reports on behalf of their supervisors without receiving any credit for their work.” This is the publisher’s statement about the issue, not an independent measurement of how often it occurs.
Best Value
What should the invited reviewer and co-reviewer check?
- Read the journal’s reviewer instructions and invitation. Confirm whether collaboration is permitted and whether the editor must approve it first.
- Ask the editor through the approved channel. Identify the proposed co-reviewer before sharing the manuscript or drafting the report. Follow the journal’s process for recording their details.
- Protect confidentiality. Share the manuscript only if the journal’s rules allow it, and do not involve additional people without authorization. Consider conflicts of interest and any restrictions tied to editorial-board roles.
- Confirm submission and recognition arrangements. Establish who will submit the report, whether the co-reviewer can be named, who receives editorial feedback, and whether any recognition is private, public, or recorded by a service.
For early-career researchers, a practical boundary is simple: do not treat a supervisor’s request as a substitute for the journal’s permission. If the process is unclear, pause and ask the editor before accessing or contributing to the confidential review.
Is it ethical for a supervisor to submit a review written by a student?
Submitting a report that a student substantially wrote without disclosing that contribution is the kind of practice the 2019 study called ghostwriting; most survey respondents who addressed it regarded it as unethical. A disclosed co-review, by contrast, was viewed as ethical by 73% of respondents. The ethical and procedural distinction is transparency: the journal should be able to assess who took part and whether the collaboration follows its rules.
The study also found that respondents generally supported attribution when a contributor supplied ideas or text. Actual authorship or credit arrangements still depend on the journal’s policy; a survey response does not itself set journal rules.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
