Which of the Following Statements Is True Regarding the Responsibilities of a Reviewer?

The answer

In peer review—whether for a journal, grant, or conference—the reviewer's responsibilities are anchored in three duties: confidentiality, objectivity, and disclosure of conflicts of interest. The statement that captures all of these is the true one:

A reviewer must preserve the confidentiality of the submitted work, judge it fairly and promptly on its scientific merit, disclose (and manage or recuse from) any conflict of interest, and not exploit privileged information for personal advantage.

These principles come directly from the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) framework taught in CITI Program modules on peer review. Reviewing is a position of trust: the reviewer sees unpublished ideas and data before anyone else, and that access carries obligations.

Why each duty matters

Confidentiality. A manuscript or grant proposal is privileged, unpublished intellectual property. The reviewer must not share it, show it to colleagues (except an approved co-reviewer disclosed to the editor), or discuss its contents. Breaching confidentiality can let ideas be scooped and destroys the trust the whole system depends on.

Objectivity and timeliness. The review must be based on the quality, validity, and significance of the work—not on the authors' identity, institution, nationality, or the reviewer's personal rivalries. Reviews should also be returned promptly, because unnecessary delay harms authors' careers and the progress of science. A reviewer who cannot be fair or cannot meet the deadline should decline.

Conflict of interest. If the reviewer has a financial stake, a close collaboration or rivalry with the authors, or anything that could bias the judgment, they must disclose it to the editor and usually recuse themselves. Hiding a conflict—then using the review to advance a competitor's or one's own interests—is misconduct.

No personal use of privileged information. The reviewer cannot use unpublished data, methods, or ideas from the submission in their own work, nor delay a competitor's paper to gain a lead.

Why the other options are wrong

Typical distractors on this CITI question fail because they violate one of the duties above:

• "A reviewer may share the manuscript with colleagues to get their opinions." False—that breaches confidentiality; only an editor-approved co-reviewer is allowed.
• "A reviewer can use ideas or data from the manuscript in their own research." False—privileged information may not be used for personal gain.
• "A reviewer does not need to disclose a conflict of interest if they can stay fair." False—conflicts must be disclosed to the editor regardless of self-assessed impartiality; the editor decides how to manage them.
• "A reviewer's main job is to make sure the paper agrees with their own findings." False—reviews must be objective, not self-serving.

The bigger picture

Peer review protects the integrity of the scholarly record. When reviewers uphold confidentiality, disclose conflicts, and evaluate work honestly and on time, the community can trust that published research earned its place. When they don't, the harm—scooped ideas, biased gatekeeping, delayed science—undermines everyone.