To become a peer reviewer, make yourself easy for an editor to find and to verify in a narrow field, then volunteer. Editors invite people whose recent papers, ORCID record and institutional page show checkable expertise. Publish in your niche, keep those records current, apply to reviewer panels, and co-review with a supervisor where the editor approves it.
This guide covers how to become a peer reviewer up to the day the first invitation arrives. What happens after that — deciding whether to accept, confidentiality and writing the report — is in our first-time peer reviewer's guide, which starts where this one stops.
Five places an editor searches before inviting anyone
An editor with a new manuscript needs people who know its topic and methods and have no link to the authors. Nobody applies to review that particular manuscript, so the editor goes looking. The search draws on a handful of sources:
- The literature on the manuscript's question. Authors of recent papers on the same topic, including papers the manuscript cites. Corresponding authors are the easiest to reach, because their address is printed on the paper.
- The journal's own reviewer list. People who registered or applied, searched by the expertise keywords they gave.
- The authors' suggestions. These are advice only, and editors add reviewers they found themselves; our guide to suggesting reviewers covers this from the author's side.
- Reviewers who decline. A senior colleague who cannot take a manuscript may name someone who can. Our reviewer guidelines call suggesting alternatives "a valuable courtesy".
- The editorial board. Board members recommend people they know in their field.
Each route starts from something the editor can see or check: a paper, a profile, a keyword or a colleague's recommendation. None starts from a CV the editor has never seen, which is why being findable comes before volunteering.
Make your expertise findable and verifiable before you offer to review
Editors and authors look for the same profile in a reviewer: niche expertise, independence from the authors, a verifiable publication record, an ORCID iD and an institutional email address. The suggesting-reviewers guide explains each of those from the author's side. The table below turns them into tasks for you.
| What an editor checks | Where they check it | What to do now |
|---|---|---|
| Recent work on the manuscript's exact question | Literature databases and the manuscript's reference list | Publish on a defined question, and take the corresponding-author role on a paper when your team agrees |
| That you are the person named on those papers | Your ORCID record | List your works, current employment and a few keywords, and make them visible |
| A current post and a working address | Your institutional staff page | Ask for a page that shows your institutional email and a one-line research focus |
| One identity across all your papers | The author names on your papers | Use one form of your name, and give your ORCID iD every time you submit |
| What you can judge, in the terms they search | The keywords in the journal's reviewer list | Name methods as well as topics, such as "interrupted time series" or "diagnostic accuracy studies" |
Your ORCID record and staff page do the work while you are not in the room. Apply from your institutional address as well: an editor can confirm it against your staff page, and a free-mail address gives them nothing to confirm.
How to become a peer reviewer by volunteering directly
Volunteering is the one route you control. Journals take offers in different ways. Some publish a reviewer application form, some ask you to register in their submission system with keywords, and some accept an email to the editorial office. Read the journal's own reviewer page and use the route it names.
Choose journals whose recent papers you could have reviewed: ones you read, cite or have published in. A targeted offer to three such journals says more than one message copied to thirty. Keep the offer short, factual and checkable. The template below fits a form's message box or an email.
Subject: Offer to review for [journal name]
Dear Editor,
I would like to be considered as a reviewer for [journal name]. I am a [position] at [institution], working on [narrow topic].
Topics I can review: [topic 1]; [topic 2]; [topic 3].
Methods I can assess: [method 1]; [method 2].
Recent work: [authors], [short title], [journal], [year], https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx; [second paper, same format].
ORCID iD: [your iD]
Institutional page: [address of your staff page]
I would decline any manuscript from [group or institution I work with] and would declare any other conflict when invited. I can usually return a report within [a period you can honour].
Yours sincerely,
[name], [position], [institution]
Directive's published reviewer criteria, worked through for one applicant
Our own reviewer pages show what a published set of criteria looks like. Under "What we look for", Become a Reviewer lists three criteria and one recommendation, quoted in the table. The third refers to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), whose Core Practices our editorial policies align with. Our Reviewer Guidelines add: "When you join, we ask for your ORCID iD and your areas of expertise so editors can match you with suitable manuscripts."
The applicant below is invented to illustrate the structure; the details are not real.
| Criterion, quoted | Evidence an editor can check | Invented applicant |
|---|---|---|
| "A doctoral degree or equivalent research/clinical experience." | Degree, post and research record on a staff page or ORCID record | Anaesthesia registrar with a master's degree and three years as a trial research fellow; no doctorate, so the application sets out the research experience |
| "Publications or demonstrable expertise in your subject area." | Papers linked to the applicant's ORCID iD | Two first-author papers on postoperative delirium, one as corresponding author |
| "A commitment to impartial, timely, and ethical evaluation (COPE-aligned)." | Stated in the application, then shown in reports | Names the research group whose manuscripts they would decline |
| "An ORCID iD is recommended." | A public ORCID record | 0000-0002-1825-0097 (ORCID's demonstration record), with both papers listed |
Whether that experience counts as "equivalent" is for the journal to judge, not the applicant. The application's job is to make it easy to check. Our form asks for your name, email, affiliation, country, areas of expertise or subject keywords, ORCID iD and an optional brief message. Applying is a request to join the reviewer pool, not a guarantee of an invitation. We publish no figure for how many applicants join or are invited, or how soon.
Early-career routes: co-review with the editor's approval, and practise
A PhD student or junior researcher can learn by drafting a review with a supervisor who has been invited. The condition is the editor's prior approval. Our reviewer guidelines put it plainly: "Do not involve a colleague or student in your review without the editor's prior approval; if approved, that person is bound by the same confidentiality." Without that approval, a shared draft is a confidentiality breach, however good the teaching.
So the invited reviewer asks the editor first, names you and explains your role. Ask at the same time how your contribution will be recorded. A named co-reviewer is someone the editor has seen work; an unnamed helper is not.
Two further routes need no invitation. The first-time reviewer guide names two training resources. And some journals publish reviewer reports alongside their articles. Write your own report on one of those papers, compare it with the published reports, and ask your supervisor which differences matter.
After you volunteer: habits that lead to further invitations
A genuine first invitation names a specific manuscript and asks for a yes or no by a date. Whether to accept is covered in the first-time guide. Whether a second invitation follows depends partly on things an editor can see:
- Reply promptly, even to decline. Our guidelines ask for exactly that, because "a quick reply keeps the process moving for authors".
- When you decline, name a qualified colleague who has no conflict.
- If you accept and fall behind, tell the editor early rather than going silent.
- Update your expertise keywords when your research moves, so the invitations you receive still match what you can judge.
- Connect your ORCID iD. Our guidelines encourage it "so that your contributions can be acknowledged", without disclosing what you reviewed.
A real reviewer role never comes with a price
Offers of a place on a "reviewer board" also arrive by email, and some are sales approaches. A real invitation to review names a manuscript and asks only for your time. A place offered for a fee, or in return for submitting your own paper, is not an appointment. Our list of emails we send and never send shows how to check the sender.
The application form is on Become a Reviewer, and Reviewer Guidelines set out how review works here once you are invited. If anything on this page is wrong or out of date, report the problem to us and we will correct it.