How to Decline a Peer Review Invitation

The most common reason, and the one where authors of the decline tend to over-explain. The editor needs two facts: that you are not doing it, and whether there is anyone else. A paragraph is enough, and it should go out the same day the invitation arrives.

Dear Dr [Editor name],

Thank you for the invitation to review "[Manuscript title]" (MS [ID]).

I am not able to take this one on. My review commitments through [month] are already full, and I would not be able to return a report of the quality the manuscript deserves within your deadline.

Two colleagues who work directly on this problem and whom I would suggest instead:

- Dr [Name], [Institution], [institutional email]. Published on [specific topic] in [year] and uses the same [method or dataset] as the manuscript.
- Prof. [Name], [Institution], [institutional email]. Works on [related aspect]; to my knowledge neither has a connection to the authors.

I would be glad to look at a manuscript for you later in the year if the timing suits.

Best regards,
[Name]

Reply within 24 to 48 hours

the delay before a decline is the part that costs the editor, not the decline itself.

Give one line of reason and stop. You owe no account of your workload, and a long explanation invites a negotiation over the deadline.

Suggest two alternatives with institutional emails

this is the single most useful thing in the message, and most editorial systems have a field for it.

Do not pass the manuscript to a colleague or a student to review in your place. The invitation is confidential, and delegating it without the editor's agreement breaches that. If you want a junior colleague involved, ask the editor first; many journals have a formal co-review route.

Say whether you would take one later, if you mean it. Editors keep track, and it is how you stay on the list for the papers you do want.

Here the reason is the message, and vagueness is the failure. An editor who is told only that a conflict exists cannot judge its size and may come back to ask. State the relationship, state the dates, and let the editor decide. Declining for a conflict is never held against you.

Dear Dr [Editor name],

Thank you for the invitation to review "[Manuscript title]" (MS [ID]).

I have to decline because of a conflict of interest. I co-authored two papers with [author name] in [year] and [year], and we currently hold a joint grant ([funder, reference]) that runs to [year]. Under your conflict of interest policy, and under the COPE guidance on recent collaborators, that puts me outside the range of an impartial review.

For transparency: I have not seen this manuscript before, and I have had no discussion with the authors about it.

Colleagues who work on the same question and have no connection to the group, as far as I am aware:

- Dr [Name], [Institution], [institutional email].
- Prof. [Name], [Institution], [institutional email].

Best regards,
[Name]

Name the relationship and the dates

co-authorship in 2024, a joint grant to 2027, a shared institution until last year. The editor is applying a rule with a window in it, usually three years.

Declare it even when you think it is minor. Disclosure costs you nothing and an undisclosed relationship discovered later is a serious matter for you and for the journal.

Say whether you have already seen the work, in a preprint, at a conference or as a draft. Editors need to know that separately from the conflict.

Delete the file and any copy you downloaded, and say nothing about the manuscript to anyone. Confidentiality applies to an invitation you declined exactly as it does to one you accepted.

Let the editor make the call when you are genuinely unsure

describe the relationship and ask whether they consider it disqualifying, rather than deciding for them in either direction. The conflict of interest guide covers where the lines usually fall.

A third case worth a sentence of its own: the invitation is a genuine mismatch, usually because a keyword in your work matched a keyword in the paper. Say which part you could review and which you could not, because editors sometimes want exactly that.

Be specific about the boundary

you can assess the electrochemistry but not the clinical outcomes, rather than the paper not being your area.

Offer a partial review when you can, since editors often assemble a panel and a narrow, confident report on one section is useful.

Suggest the discipline the missing expertise sits in, even if you cannot name a person: it tells the editor where to look next.

Decline outright rather than reviewing outside your competence. A confident report from the wrong specialist is worse for the paper than no report.

Do not accept in order to read the manuscript. Reading unpublished work you have no intention of reporting on is a misuse of the invitation.

The behaviours below cause real damage, to the paper, to the authors, or to you. None of them is hypothetical.

Ignoring the invitation

most systems chase for one to two weeks before giving up, and that time comes out of the authors' clock.

Accepting and then going quiet

far more costly than declining, because the editor waits on a slot that was never going to be filled.

Passing the manuscript to someone else without telling the editor, which breaks the confidentiality of the review.

Using anything you read in the manuscript in your own work, whether or not you completed the review.

Declining a paper because you disagree with its conclusions. Disagreement is a reason to review it carefully, not a conflict of interest.