Instructions to Reviewers

To maintain its high editorial standards, we rely on the time and expertise of volunteer reviewers. These guidelines are adapted from the Council of Science Editors White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. We rely on reviewers to guarantee that an article submitted meets the following criteria:

1. The study is well-planned and carried out.
2. Methods shall be presented in such a way that they can be replicated.
3. The data is clear and thoroughly examined.
4. Data backs up the conclusions.

Ethical Responsibilities

Peer reviewers are also accountable to writers, editors, and readers. Please give them careful thought.

Privacy

The material under evaluation shall be a privileged communication which, unless necessary and permitted by the editor, should not be shared nor discussed with anybody else beyond the review process. If you want to enlist the help of a colleague or trainee for the review, be sure they don’t have any competing interests. Reviewers are not permitted to keep copies of submitted papers or to use manuscript subject knowledge for any purpose other than peer review. Although the editor and/or reviewers are expected to have access to the submitted content, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will be kept completely confidential. For all submissions, the evaluation process is completed anonymously. Reviewers are asked to keep their identities hidden from outsiders and the media.

Constructive Assessment

Reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, present negative aspects constructively, and indicate needed improvements, in addition to providing authors with insight into deficiencies in the submitted work. Reviewers should explain and defend their decisions so that editors and authors are aware of the reasoning behind their remarks. A relevant citation must be included with any statement that an observation or argument has been previously reported. If reviewers have concerns about ethical issues (such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, or data fabrication or falsification) or that the paper’s distribution may represent a threat to public health, safety, or security, they should promptly notify the editor(s).

Peer review is not intended to demonstrate a reviewer’s ability to spot errors; negative criticism is not required. Reviewers should point out strengths and make constructive suggestions to assist authors to improve their work. Suggestions that are outside the scope of the current project but should be explored for future research should be stated explicitly. Reviewers should respect the authors’ intellectual independence and refrain from making personal comments in their reviews. Despite the fact that evaluations are private, all remarks should be courteous and able to withstand public scrutiny. Review comments that may obstruct meaningful discussion of a manuscript or reveal confidential information may be edited by editors.

Competency

Reviewers who perceive that their knowledge of the subject of the article is inadequate must inform the editor of their level of expertise. Despite the fact that reviewers do not need to be experts in every aspect of the subject, the assignment should only be accepted if they have sufficient knowledge to deliver an authoritative opinion.

Neutrality and Integrity

Commentary and conclusions from reviewers should be based on an objective and impartial examination of the facts, free of personal or professional partiality. All comments from reviewers should be focused exclusively on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and writing quality, as well as its relevance to the purposes and scope of the particular publication. A reviewer should make every effort to prevent even the impression of taking advantage of information received through the review process, and should not take scientific, financial, personal, or other benefit of material made available through the privileged communication of peer review.

Competing Interest

The peer-review process should, to the greatest extent feasible, minimize actual or apparent bias on the part of the reviewer. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest that could interfere with an objective evaluation, they should decline to examine the manuscript or raise their concerns with the editor(s) before completing their review.

Adherence to timeline

The reviewers are expected to act immediately, follow the directions to complete the review, and complete the assessment within the given period.

Other Responsibilities

To Authors

• Prove documented, unbiased feedback and reasons for your opinion on the academic merits and the scientific values of the work.
• Please Provide your review in the timeline as quickly as feasible.
• Indicate if the work’s composition, scientific precision, creativity, and interest to readership are clear, concise, appropriate, and relevant.
• Avoid personal remarks or critiques.
• No direct communication to the author without the consent of the editor.
• Keep the review process discreet by not sharing, discussing, or releasing material from the article reviewed.

To Editors

• Notify the editor of any potential competing personal or financial interests, and refuse to review if a competitive interest is evident.
• Determine and propose strategies for improving scientific merit, creativity, and scale of work.
• Avoid authors’ comments on paper approval or refusal.
• Note any ethical issues such as the significant similarity between the manuscript examined and any published publication or manuscript presented simultaneously elsewhere.