TY - JOUR TI - Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts AU - McDowell, Gary S AU - Knutsen, John D AU - Graham, June M AU - Oelker, Sarah K AU - Lijek, Rebeccah S A2 - Rodgers, Peter A2 - Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca A2 - Sarabipour, Sarvenaz A2 - Grimaldo, Francisco VL - 8 PY - 2019 DA - 2019/10/31 SP - e48425 C1 - eLife 2019;8:e48425 DO - 10.7554/eLife.48425 UR - https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48425 AB - Many early-career researchers are involved in the peer review of manuscripts for scientific journals, typically under the guidance of or jointly with their advisor, but most of the evidence about this activity is anecdotal. Here we report the results of a literature review and a survey of researchers, with an emphasis on co-reviewing and 'ghostwriting'. The literature review identified 36 articles that addressed the involvement of early-career researchers in peer review, most of them about early-career researchers and their advisors co-reviewing manuscripts for the purposes of training: none of them addressed the topic of ghostwriting in detail. About three quarters of the respondents to the survey had co-reviewed a manuscript. Most respondents believe co-reviewing to be a beneficial (95%) and ethical (73%) form of training in peer review. About half of the respondents have ghostwritten a peer review report, despite 81% responding that ghostwriting is unethical and 82% agreeing that identifying co-reviewers to the journal is valuable. Peer review would benefit from changes in both journal policies and lab practices that encourage mentored co-review and discourage ghostwriting. KW - ghostwriting KW - peer review training KW - early career researcher JF - eLife SN - 2050-084X PB - eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd ER -