Early-career researchers can help review a manuscript, but if they contribute without being identified to the journal, the editor may not know who did the work—and the contributor may receive no recognition. The practical rule is to check the journal’s reviewer instructions and disclose any collaborator through its approved process before sharing a confidential manuscript or drafting a report. Policies differ by journal.
What “ghostwriting” means in peer review
In a 2019 study, “ghostwriting” meant contributing to a peer-review report without being named to journal editorial staff. It is about undisclosed contribution, not whether reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors or the public. A journal can keep the review confidential while still knowing which people helped prepare it. McDowell et al.’s study in eLife and its figures and definitions distinguish these issues.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Co-reviewing can be a useful way to learn the practice of peer review, but a supervisor submitting a student’s work under only the supervisor’s name leaves the journal without a complete account of who assessed the paper. That is different from a transparent co-review arrangement approved by the journal.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →What the 2019 survey found—and what it did not
McDowell and colleagues reviewed 36 articles about early-career researcher involvement in peer review. Most addressed co-review as training, and the authors said none examined ghostwriting in detail. In their survey, about three quarters of respondents said they had co-reviewed a manuscript, and 95% considered co-review beneficial.
#1 Best Overall
- College writing
- College
- BU
- WR97
- ESL
About half of the survey respondents said they had ghostwritten a peer-review report. That is a finding about those respondents, not an estimate of all researchers or a current prevalence rate. The same survey found that 81% of respondents regarded ghostwriting as unethical and 82% considered identifying co-reviewers to the journal valuable.
Respondents also drew a distinction between undisclosed work and transparent collaboration: 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 survey responses, not a universal rule about authorship; the journal’s policy determines how contributors should be recorded.
How early-career researchers can get credit for peer reviewing
“Credit” can mean different things, and one form does not guarantee another:
- Disclosure to the editor: the journal knows who contributed to the report. This is the key step for avoiding undisclosed co-review.
- Public recognition: a journal may name reviewers or contributors in a public statement, if its policy and the review arrangement permit it.
- Third-party record: a review may be recorded through a recognition service. This does not necessarily mean the contributor receives editorial feedback or public credit.
Do not assume a supervisor can simply add a student’s name after the report is submitted. Before accessing the manuscript, the invited reviewer should check the specific journal’s instructions, ask whether co-review is allowed, and use the required process to identify the collaborator. Keep the manuscript and review confidential, and do not forward the paper or invite another reviewer without authorization.
Can you co-review a paper with your supervisor?
Sometimes. The invited reviewer should first verify the journal’s rules and disclose the proposed collaborator as instructed. The journal may require the collaborator’s details, a separate invitation, or another approval step. If the instructions do not address co-review, ask the editor rather than assuming permission.
IOP Publishing provides one example of a formal process: its invited reviewers can request co-review through a link in the invitation, enter the colleague’s details, and follow the workflow. IOP says editorial staff should know everyone who contributed. It also says only the person who submits the report receives an evaluation of it, even when co-reviewers can obtain Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service recognition. IOP cautions that board members should not co-review with a colleague because of potential confidentiality problems. IOP Publishing’s co-review guidance describes these rules; other journals may handle permission, submission, feedback, and recognition differently.
Rank #4
Formal schemes also exist at some Nature portfolio journals. In an editorial published 28 May 2026, Nature Computational Science described participation in a co-review initiative intended to involve early-career researchers and recognize their service. An editorial in Nature Ecology & Evolution, published 5 August 2026, described a recently formalized scheme to introduce early-career researchers to reviewing and recognize their efforts. These examples show that approved routes are available in some venues, not that every journal follows the same policy. Nature Computational Science and Nature Ecology & Evolution explain their initiatives.
Is it ethical for a supervisor to submit a review written by a student?
The central issue is whether the journal permits the collaboration and is told who contributed. A supervisor should not present a student’s substantial review work as solely their own without following the journal’s disclosure process. A student should not assume that a supervisor’s invitation automatically authorizes sharing the manuscript or that disclosure to the supervisor alone counts as disclosure to the journal.
IOP Publishing states: “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.” That is the publisher’s description of a concern, not an independent estimate of how often it happens. Its guidance sets out an approved co-review path for its journals.
What to check before agreeing to co-review
- Does the journal allow the invited reviewer to involve a colleague?
- Must the collaborator be named to the editor or separately invited?
- Who submits the report, and who can receive editorial feedback?
- Is recognition private, public, or recorded through a third-party service?
- Do confidentiality rules or the reviewer’s role—for example, editorial board membership—restrict collaboration?
If the journal does not offer co-review, ask the editor whether another form of participation is allowed. If the answer is no, do not share the manuscript or enlist a collaborator. For training, seek guidance from the supervisor or formal reviewer training that does not require unauthorized access to a confidential submission.
Quick 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.
