A review report belongs to a governed communication space
Peer review commonly operates under confidentiality. The manuscript, reports, identities, editorial letters and response files may not be distributed outside the process. That remains true when a comment is unusually insightful or when an author possesses the file. Receipt does not by itself convey publication permission.
Open peer review changes the position, but not every boundary. Some journals publish reports and responses with persistent identifiers; others reveal names only or make report publication optional. Inspect the particular article and policy. A published review supplement differs from a private message in the submission platform.
Confidentiality protects the submitted work too. Reviewers must not exploit unpublished ideas or data. Authors should not try to identify anonymous reviewers from prose, metadata or public speculation. This page gives publication guidance, not a legal view on copyright or privacy.
Test scholarly suggestions independently
A reviewer may identify missing literature, an unsupported assumption or another interpretation. Do not adopt the proposition solely because a reviewer asserted it. Retrieve the cited research, read the full context and decide with reasons. In the response letter, identify the change and location; explain a scholarly disagreement without attacking the reviewer.
A suggestion can prompt new analysis. Apply the same data, code and method documentation as for any other analysis. Keep inputs, parameters and result. The suggestion does not automatically confer authorship. If collaboration later becomes extensive, reassess actual contributions and journal policy.
Do not publicly paraphrase a confidential report as a formal workaround. Substance and identifiability matter in addition to exact wording. In the paper, support factual propositions with accessible literature rather than an “anonymous reviewer” reference.
Attribute a published review to its public release
Where journal and reviewer have made the report part of the publication record, it may be cited according to the relevant style. Record named or anonymous authorship, report type, linked article, journal, publication date, DOI or stable URL and version. Cite the public record, not a different local draft.
A direct quotation uses quotation marks and a locator where paragraphs, pages or sections exist. If the report lacks pagination, identify a heading or numbered comment. Check licence and quotation limits; visibility does not permit unlimited republication.
Obtain consent for acknowledgements, especially a named acknowledgement. A generic thanks under journal practice does not make a reviewer responsible for the paper. Naming someone can imply endorsement of controversial content, so the agreed wording matters.
Post-publication review on a recognised platform may be a separate scholarly object. Confirm moderation, persistence and version. A social-media comment about the paper is not transformed into formal peer review by being quoted.
Keep confidential reports out of unapproved services
Reports may contain unpublished results, personal data and editorial deliberation. Do not upload them to generative AI, translation websites or external writing tools without permission and an approved data arrangement. Check the journal and institutional rules. A local spelling tool is not necessarily equivalent to a remote service that retains prompts.
Minimise distribution within the author group. Use the approved project system, restrict access and remove public sharing links. Response letters often reproduce reviewer text and require the same protection. Submission screenshots do not belong in talks or social media.
Even under open review, use the released version. Local copies may contain editorial notes or hidden metadata that were never approved for disclosure. Compare against the official landing page before any quotation.
Preserve a controlled review history
Store the submitted manuscript, decision letter, report, response and revision as one versioned cycle. The sequence can explain how the paper changed but remains governed by journal confidentiality. Give access only to authorised people.
Remove redundant copies and open links under an agreed retention process, while preserving the authoritative record. Institutional and journal policies determine periods. If an integrity question later requires the material, provide it through the competent process rather than publishing it independently.
Record permission decisions with date and scope. Consent to quote one sentence in a conference talk does not automatically authorise a full online release. If consent is withdrawn before publication, consult the editor and use an alternative source where possible.
The peer-review and AI guide covers external tools. The recognition matrix separates thanks and authorship. More material sits in the publication ethics hub. The one foundation route is the guide to verifiable records.