How to Become a Reviewer or Editorial Board Member

Reviewer, Editor, Board Member: Understanding the Roles

If you are wondering how to become a reviewer for a journal or how to join an editorial board, start by separating the roles, because journals use the titles differently and each one has its own entry route. A peer reviewer assesses individual manuscripts when invited. An editorial board member usually reviews more often, advises on scope and policy, and may handle manuscripts as an editor. Senior editors make decisions and are accountable for the journal's quality.

Common roles in a journal's editorial team
Role	Main responsibility	Typical entry route
Peer reviewer	Evaluates manuscripts in their expertise and recommends a decision	Registering with the journal, editor invitation, colleague recommendation
Co-reviewer	Prepares a review jointly with an experienced reviewer, with the editor's permission	Invitation by a supervisor or senior colleague
Editorial board member	Reviews regularly, advises on scope, suggests reviewers and themes, promotes the journal	A track record of reliable reviews and publications; invitation by the editor-in-chief
Associate or handling editor	Manages manuscripts through review and recommends or makes decisions	Experienced board members or reviewers with a strong record
Guest editor	Leads a special issue on a theme, under the journal's oversight	Proposal accepted by the editor-in-chief
Editor-in-chief	Final editorial authority and accountability for policies and decisions	Appointed by the publisher or society, usually from senior editors

Most people move through these roles in order. Very few researchers are invited onto a credible editorial board without first proving themselves as dependable reviewers, which is why the bulk of this guide focuses on reviewing well.

Why Become a Peer Reviewer or Editorial Board Member

Reviewing is unpaid at most journals, including JMVRA, where reviewer and editorial board positions are voluntary. Researchers still take on the work because the benefits are real, even if they are not financial.

1

Sharper research skills

Critiquing other people's methods and arguments makes you notice weaknesses in your own manuscripts before reviewers do.

2

Early view of the field

You read new work months before it is published and see which questions your peers are pursuing.

3

Professional standing

Verified reviewing and editorial roles are recognised service activities on academic CVs and in promotion files.

4

Service to science

Peer review is how the research community checks itself. Every careful review protects readers from flawed work.

Editors remember reviewers who are punctual, specific and fair. Those three habits open more doors than any title.

Who Is Eligible to Become a Peer Reviewer?

Publisher guidance is consistent on one point: anyone with genuine expertise in the subject of a manuscript can review it, regardless of career stage. What journals actually check is evidence of that expertise. Each journal sets its own minimum, so read the reviewer page before applying. At JMVRA, for example, the reviewer page asks for a Ph.D. in a relevant field, or a relevant master's degree with substantial experience in the same discipline; the exact requirement is stated on the reviewer application page.

What editors look for

A doctorate, or an advanced degree plus documented experience in the subject
Peer-reviewed publications in the area, ideally as first or corresponding author
A clear, specific list of research interests and methods you can assess
A current institutional affiliation or verifiable professional role
Public research identifiers (ORCID iD, Google Scholar profile) that confirm the above
Good written English, or good command of the journal's language of publication
Availability: the ability to return a review within the journal's timeline

Tip: Doctoral scholars without a publication record can still start. Ask your supervisor to involve you as a co-reviewer, with the editor's approval, and to credit you in the confidential comments. Many journals accept this arrangement and it is a recognised training route.

Expertise beats breadth

"Computer science" or "management" is too broad to be useful to an editor. "Federated learning for medical imaging" or "working capital management in small manufacturers" tells them exactly which manuscripts to send you. Three to six precise keywords work far better than a long, general list, and they reduce the number of invitations you will need to decline.

Build a Profile Editors Can Find: ORCID, Google Scholar and More

Editors search for reviewers by keyword, by citation and through the journal's database. If your public profile is empty, you are invisible even if your expertise is excellent. Build these profiles once and keep them current.

ORCID iDFree persistent identifier; link your publications
Google ScholarPublic profile with verified institutional email
Institutional pageInterests, methods, recent work
Journal accountsReviewer profile with keywords in each journal you read

ORCID

ORCID provides every researcher with a free, persistent 16-digit identifier that distinguishes you from others with similar names. Add your employment, education and publications, and allow trusted organisations to update your record. Many journal systems ask for an ORCID iD at registration, and some can later add verified review activity to the peer review section of your record.

Google Scholar and other profiles

A public Google Scholar profile shows your publications and citations in one place and is often the first thing an editor checks. Verify it with your institutional email, review the automatically added papers for errors, and make it public. Researcher-centred networks add another layer: Scholar Research Publication Network (scholarrpn.org) connects an author's publications, profile and citations, which helps editors see your body of work at a glance.

Note: Use one consistent form of your name and affiliation across every profile. Editors often cross-check, and mismatched names make verification slow.

How to Become a Reviewer for a Journal: Routes That Work

There is no single application form for peer review across all journals. Instead, there are several reliable routes, and most active reviewers use more than one.

1

Register in the journal's system

Create an account in the journal's submission and review system and complete the reviewer profile with precise keywords. Many editors search this database first.

2

Apply through a reviewer page

Journals that recruit openly publish a "join as reviewer" form. Complete every field; incomplete forms are usually ignored.

3

Email the editor directly

For a journal you read and cite regularly, send a short, specific email explaining your expertise. New or expanding journals especially welcome this.

4

Be recommended

A colleague who already reviews for a journal can suggest you when declining an invitation. Ask senior colleagues to keep you in mind.

5

Review for conferences

Conference programme committees need many reviewers and are often more open to early-career researchers.

6

Publish in the journal

Authors become natural reviewer candidates, because the editor has already seen their work and their keywords.

When a journal runs its review process in a journal management system, your profile, availability and review history are kept in one place. In JWJMS (jwjms.org), for example, the system handles reviewer invitations and reminders, revision rounds and decisions, with a full record of each step, so a reviewer who responds reliably builds a visible track record with the editors.

Writing a Reviewer Application or Cover Email

Your application email is the first thing an editor sees. Keep it under 200 words and make every line useful. Editors read many of these; specific, verifiable details stand out.

Structure

Subject"Reviewer application: [your specific area]"
Who you arePosition, institution, highest degree
Expertise3–6 precise keywords and methods
EvidenceORCID, Google Scholar, 2–3 key papers
AvailabilityHow many reviews you can take per period

Illustrative example of the expertise line: "I can assess manuscripts on structural equation modelling in consumer behaviour, survey instrument validation and mixed-methods tourism research." That one sentence lets an editor match you to manuscripts immediately. A line such as "I am an expert in all areas of management" does the opposite.

Do

Address the editor by name if listed
Link to profiles rather than attaching a long CV
Mention any prior reviewing, even for conferences
State honestly how much time you can offer

Avoid

Sending the same email to dozens of journals at once
Asking for an editorial board title in a first contact
Listing every subject you have ever studied
Follow-ups more than once every few weeks

Accepting Your First Review Invitation

When the first invitation arrives, respond quickly, ideally within two or three days. Editors often wait for a reply before inviting someone else, so a slow "no" delays the author more than a fast one.

Before you accept, check four things

Fit: the abstract falls within your expertise, and you can judge the methods used
Conflicts: you have no close collaboration, rivalry, financial or personal tie with the likely authors or the work
Time: you can deliver by the deadline, which is commonly two to four weeks
Journal: the journal is genuine (see the section on fake invitations below)

If any answer is no, decline promptly and, where possible, suggest one or two qualified colleagues. Editors value a thoughtful decline with good suggestions almost as much as an acceptance. If something changes after you accept, tell the editor immediately rather than going silent.

Warning: Under double-anonymous review, do not try to identify the authors through search engines or preprint servers. If you recognise the work anyway, tell the editor and let them decide whether you should continue.

How to Write a Good Peer Review

A useful review helps two audiences: the editor, who needs a clear basis for a decision, and the authors, who need specific guidance to improve the paper. Read the manuscript once for the overall argument, then a second time section by section, taking notes.

A structure editors appreciate

Parts of a well-organised peer review report
Part	What to write
Summary	Two to four sentences restating the research question, approach and main claim, showing you understood the paper
Overall assessment	The contribution, its originality and whether the conclusions follow from the evidence
Major issues	Numbered points on design, data, analysis or interpretation that must be resolved, each with a suggested remedy
Minor issues	Clarity, figures, references, terminology and small errors, numbered with page or line references
Confidential comments to the editor	Concerns such as suspected duplicate publication, ethics problems or conflicts, and your recommendation
Recommendation	Accept, minor revision, major revision or reject, consistent with the comments above

Questions to ask in each section

Introduction: is the gap real and supported by current literature?
Methods: could another researcher repeat the study from this description?
Data and analysis: are the tests appropriate, assumptions checked and data available as the journal's policy requires?
Results: do tables and figures match the text, and are uncertainties reported?
Discussion: are limitations acknowledged and claims proportionate to the evidence?
Ethics: is there evidence of approval and consent where human participants or animals are involved?
References: are key sources present, and are there signs of excessive or irrelevant self-citation?

Tone

Write as you would want to be reviewed. Criticise the work, not the people. Replace "this is wrong" with "the conclusion in section 4 does not follow from Table 2 because…". Avoid asking authors to cite your own papers unless they are genuinely essential, and if you do, say so to the editor. Language problems should be noted neutrally; they are not grounds for rejection on their own when the science is sound.

A good review explains what would make the paper better. A great review does it so clearly that the authors can act on every point.

Peer Review Ethics: Confidentiality, Conflicts and AI Tools

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishes Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers that most reputable journals follow. Their core duties are straightforward, and breaking them can end a reviewing career.

1

Confidentiality

Do not share, discuss or keep the manuscript beyond the review, during or after the process, unless the journal allows it.

2

No personal gain

Never use unpublished ideas, data or methods from a manuscript for your own work or to help or harm anyone.

3

Declare conflicts

Tell the editor about any competing interest, and ask if you are unsure whether something counts.

4

Impartiality

Judge the work, not the authors' nationality, institution, gender, beliefs or commercial links.

Generative AI and peer review

Uploading a confidential manuscript to a public generative AI tool may expose unpublished work to a third party, which breaches confidentiality. Many publishers therefore prohibit reviewers from putting manuscripts, or their review reports, into such tools. COPE's position is that AI tools cannot take responsibility for scholarly work, so the reviewer remains fully accountable for every judgement in the report. Follow the journal's specific AI policy; if there is none, do not upload the manuscript, and write the assessment yourself.

Misconduct you must avoid

Passing a review to a student or colleague without the editor's permission
Contacting the authors directly about the manuscript
Delaying a review to publish competing work first
Coercing citations to your own work
Impersonating another researcher or creating a fake reviewer identity, which COPE treats as serious misconduct

Journals that run transparent double-blind peer review, as JMVRA does, rely on these duties to protect both sides. You can read how the process works on the JMVRA peer review page.

How to Become an Editorial Board Member

A seat on a credible editorial board is usually earned, not applied for cold. Editors-in-chief invite people they trust to review well, respond on time and represent the journal responsibly. The fastest way to become an editorial board member is therefore to be an outstanding reviewer for that journal first.

What makes a strong board candidate

Several completed reviews for the journal that were punctual and constructive
An active publication record in a sub-field the board currently lacks
A network you can draw on to suggest reviewers and invite authors
Willingness to handle manuscripts and follow the journal's policies
A verifiable public profile and institutional affiliation

How to raise your interest

Once you have reviewed for a journal for a while, it is reasonable to write to the editor-in-chief, mention the reviews you have completed, identify a gap in the board's coverage you could fill, and offer a specific contribution, such as handling papers in that area or proposing a themed issue. Proposing and guest editing a special issue is a recognised route onto a board, because it shows you can attract authors and manage a review process. Some journals also recruit openly; JMVRA explains its process on the become an editor or reviewer page, and the current members are listed on the editorial board page.

What board members actually do

Typical editorial board duties (vary by journal)
Duty	What it involves
Reviewing and handling	Reviewing more often than general reviewers, or managing papers as a handling editor
Reviewer suggestions	Recommending qualified, conflict-free reviewers for papers in their area
Policy and scope	Advising on aims and scope, article types and policy updates
Outreach	Inviting authors, proposing themes and sharing published work
Integrity	Flagging concerns about misconduct, paper mills or manipulated reviews

Note: Before accepting any board position, ask how much time is expected, how long the term is and what you will be listed as. A genuine journal can answer these questions clearly.

Recognition: Getting Credit for Reviewing and Editing

Reviewing used to be invisible work. It is now possible to record it in ways that protect anonymity while still giving you credit.

1

ORCID peer review section

Participating journals and recognition services can add verified review activity to your ORCID record, usually showing the journal and year, not the paper.

2

Web of Science Reviewer Recognition

Clarivate's service, previously known as Publons, records verified reviews for participating journals and can export them to ORCID.

3

Reviewer certificates

Many journals issue a certificate or letter after a completed review or a year of service. JMVRA offers a certificate as recognition.

4

Your CV

List journals reviewed for and editorial roles with years under "Professional service". Keep evidence in case a committee asks.

Never list a journal on your CV that you have not actually reviewed for, and never claim a board role after it has ended. Committees increasingly verify these entries, and an inaccurate service record can do more harm than an empty one.

How to Spot Fake Editorial Board and Reviewer Invitations

As soon as you publish, you may receive flattering invitations to join editorial boards or review for journals you have never heard of. Questionable publishers use board invitations to borrow your name and reputation, and sometimes to recruit you as an author. Research librarians advise treating unsolicited, generic invitations with caution until you have verified the journal.

Signs of a genuine invitation

Comes from a named editor using the journal's or institution's domain
Refers specifically to your field and explains why you were chosen
The journal's ISSN can be verified on the ISSN Portal
Board members listed on the site confirm their roles when asked
Clear peer review, ethics and fee policies are published
No payment is requested for joining the board or for reviewing

Red flags

"Dear Esteemed Professor" greetings and generic praise
A fee, "membership charge" or "processing fee" to join the board
Board membership tied to submitting your own paper
Scope so broad that it covers every subject imaginable
Indexing or impact claims that cannot be verified in the database itself
Board listings of well-known researchers who say they never agreed

A five-minute verification routine

Search the ISSNCheck the ISSN Portal record matches the title
Check claims at sourceSearch the claimed database directly
Ask a board memberEmail one or two listed members
Read recent papersQuality, scope and peer review evidence
Use a checklistThink. Check. Submit. or your library

The Think. Check. Submit. checklist was designed for choosing journals, but the same questions apply to board invitations. Your institution's librarian is another good source of advice. If you are still unsure, decline; a genuine journal will not withdraw respect for a cautious researcher.

A Realistic Path From First Review to Editorial Board

Every journal is different, so the timings below are a general illustration rather than a rule. The point is that each stage builds the evidence the next one needs.

Months 0–3
Create ORCID and Google Scholar profiles, list precise keywords, register as a reviewer with two or three journals you read.
Months 3–12
Co-review with a mentor if you are early in your career; accept invitations that fit and return reviews on time.
Year 1–2
Build a steady record of reviews for a few journals; record them on ORCID or a recognition service.
Year 2–3
Offer to handle papers or propose a themed issue for a journal you review for regularly.
Later
Accept a board invitation that matches your expertise and time, and contribute actively to the journal's quality.

The usual progression: credible boards invite people who have already proved themselves as reviewers.

Get Started: Become a Reviewer or Board Member With Confidence

Knowing how to become a peer reviewer comes down to a few habits: make your expertise visible and specific, approach journals you genuinely know, deliver punctual and constructive reviews, keep every manuscript confidential and record your service honestly. Those same habits are what editors-in-chief look for when they choose who to invite onto an editorial board. Treat every unsolicited board invitation with healthy caution, verify it at the source and never pay to join.

If you work in one of the many subjects JMVRA covers as a multidisciplinary, monthly, online journal (online ISSN 2984-8911), you can apply to join as a reviewer or read about becoming an editor or reviewer. Positions are voluntary. Journal teams that need a system to manage reviewer invitations, reminders and decisions can look at JWJMS; for anything beyond its listed capabilities, contact the team at [email protected] or on WhatsApp at +91 91063 65667 to discuss your requirement.

How Journey & Wisdom Helps

JMVRA is published within the Journey & Wisdom group, which runs four shared services — similarity checking, journal management, DOI registration and conference management — and thirteen publication platforms. These are the ones that matter most for this guide. For anything not listed here, email [email protected] or message WhatsApp +91 91063 65667 to discuss your requirement.

JWJMS

Journal management system

Runs the editorial workflow: online submission portal, author dashboard, desk screening, reviewer invitations and reminders, revision rounds, decisions, issue building and publication scheduling — with a full record of every step.

jwjms.org

Scholar Research Publication Network

Scholar network

A researcher-centred network connecting an author's publications, profile and citations.

scholarrpn.org

See every Journey & Wisdom product and platform · JW ecosystem map

How to become a journal reviewer or editorial board member: step by step

Define your expertise precisely
Write three to six specific keywords and methods you can genuinely assess.
Create an ORCID iD
Register free at orcid.org and add your employment, education and publications.
Set up a public Google Scholar profile
Verify it with your institutional email and correct any wrongly attributed papers.
Choose journals you know
Pick two or three genuine journals in your field that you read and cite, and verify each one.
Register or apply as a reviewer
Complete the reviewer profile or form on each journal's site with your keywords and identifiers.
Send a short cover email
Explain your expertise, link your profiles and state your availability in under 200 words.
Co-review if you are early in your career
Ask a mentor to involve you, with the editor's permission.
Respond to invitations quickly
Accept only papers in your expertise without conflicts, or decline promptly with suggestions.
Write structured, ethical reviews
Summarise, list major and minor issues with remedies, keep everything confidential and avoid uploading manuscripts to AI tools.
Record your service
Add verified reviews to ORCID or a recognition service and keep certificates for your CV.
Offer more to a journal you know well
After a steady record, propose handling papers or a themed issue to the editor-in-chief.
Verify every board invitation
Check the ISSN, claims and board members before accepting, and never pay to join.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I become a reviewer for a journal?

Build public ORCID and Google Scholar profiles, define a few precise areas of expertise, then register as a reviewer in the systems of journals you know and read. You can also email the editor with a short summary of your expertise and links to your profiles, ask a colleague to recommend you, or start as a co-reviewer with a mentor. Respond quickly and review well, and invitations will follow.

Can a PhD student become a peer reviewer?

Yes, if they have real expertise in the manuscript's subject, though many journals set minimum qualifications for independent reviewers. The most common route for doctoral scholars is co-reviewing with a supervisor, with the editor's permission, and being credited in the confidential comments. Some journals require a doctorate or an advanced degree with experience, so check each journal's reviewer page.

What qualifications are required to become a reviewer?

Most journals look for a doctorate or an advanced degree plus documented experience in the field, peer-reviewed publications in the area and a verifiable affiliation. The exact requirement differs between journals. JMVRA, for instance, states its requirement on its reviewer application page, asking for a Ph.D. in a relevant field or a relevant master's degree with substantial experience.

Do peer reviewers get paid?

At most scholarly journals, peer review is unpaid academic service. Reviewers gain recognition, early insight into new research and better critical skills instead. At JMVRA, reviewer and editorial board positions are voluntary, with a certificate offered as recognition. Be cautious of anyone who asks you to pay to become a reviewer, because genuine journals do not charge reviewers.

How do I become an editorial board member of a journal?

Usually by first becoming a reliable reviewer for that journal. After a steady record of punctual, constructive reviews, write to the editor-in-chief, identify a gap in the board's expertise you can fill and offer a specific contribution, such as handling papers or guest editing a themed issue. Some journals also recruit board members openly through a published application page.

How do I write a reviewer application email?

Keep it under 200 words. Use a subject line naming your area, introduce your position and institution, list three to six precise keywords and methods, link to your ORCID and Google Scholar profiles and two or three key papers, and state how many reviews you can take on. Avoid asking for an editorial title in a first contact.

How long does a peer review take to complete?

Journals commonly give reviewers around two to four weeks, though deadlines vary by journal and field. Most reviewers spend several hours on a careful review, reading the paper at least twice. If you cannot meet the deadline, tell the editor when you receive the invitation or as soon as circumstances change, rather than delivering late without warning.

What should a good peer review report contain?

A short summary of the paper, an overall assessment of its contribution, numbered major issues with suggested remedies, numbered minor issues with page or line references, confidential comments to the editor about any ethical concerns, and a recommendation that matches your comments. Keep the tone constructive and focused on the work rather than the authors.

Can I use ChatGPT or other AI tools to write a peer review?

Many publishers forbid uploading manuscripts or review reports to public generative AI tools, because doing so can breach confidentiality. COPE's position is that AI tools cannot take responsibility for scholarly work, so you remain accountable for every judgement. Follow the journal's AI policy, and if it has none, do not upload the manuscript and write the assessment yourself.

How can I tell if an editorial board invitation is fake?

Warning signs include generic flattering greetings, requests for a fee to join, membership tied to submitting your own paper, unverifiable indexing claims and an impossibly broad scope. Check the ISSN on the ISSN Portal, verify indexing claims in the databases themselves, email one or two listed board members and read recent articles. Decline if you cannot verify the journal.

How do I get credit for my peer review work?

Ask whether the journal can add verified review activity to your ORCID record, or use Clarivate's Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, formerly Publons, for participating journals, which can export reviews to ORCID. Keep certificates or thank-you letters, and list journals reviewed for under professional service on your CV, without revealing details of the manuscripts.

Should I list reviewing on my academic CV?

Yes. Add a "Professional service" section listing journals you have reviewed for and any editorial roles, with years. Do not name individual manuscripts. Include only journals you have actually reviewed for and roles you currently hold or held in the stated years, because promotion and hiring committees increasingly verify these entries.

What is the difference between a reviewer and an editor?

A reviewer evaluates a manuscript and recommends a decision; an editor manages the process, selects reviewers, weighs their reports and makes or recommends the decision. Editorial board members often do both, reviewing regularly and handling papers in their area. The editor-in-chief holds final authority and accountability for the journal's decisions and policies.

How do I apply to be a reviewer at JMVRA?

Use the reviewer application page on the JMVRA website to submit your qualifications, research areas and contact details. JMVRA is a monthly, online, multidisciplinary journal (online ISSN 2984-8911) using transparent double-blind peer review. Positions are voluntary. For questions, write to [email protected] or message +91 91063 65667 on WhatsApp.

Useful pages on JMVRA

Publish Your Research in JMVRA

Peer-reviewed, open access (CC BY 4.0), monthly and multidisciplinary · ISSN 2984-8911 · ₹971 for Indian authors and US$41 for international authors, payable only after acceptance.

Submit Paper Call for Papers [email protected]