Guidelines for Reviewers

Purpose of Peer Review

Thank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the major cornerstones of scientific process. Peer Review serves two key functions:

• Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly verified before being published.

• Improve the quality of the research: rigorous review by other experts helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors.

On Being Asked to Review

Does the article you are being asked to review truly match your expertise?

The editor who has approached you may know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.

Read the editor’s letter carefully and be sure to note any points specific to the manuscript that the editor may have requested your opinion on

Consider whether the topic seems to fit the scope of the journal and is likely to be of sufficient general interest for publication.

Do you have time to review the paper?

Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to review can vary greatly between disciplines and of course on article type, but on average, an article will take about 5 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? To avoid unnecessary delays in processing manuscripts, please do the following immediately upon receipt of a manuscript for review:

Double-check the deadline to ensure that there have been no misunderstandings regarding timing, and contact the editorial office immediately if you anticipate any difficulties meeting it, and if possible advise the editor of alternative reviewers.

Are there any potential conflict of interest?

A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection to the article. There should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.

Conducting the Review

Reviewers are kindly requested to consider the originality of the scientific work and to evaluate the scope of the manuscript with respect to the broad readership of the journal. In particular the review form will allow you to provide feedback in the following areas:

Importance of Findings;

Quality of Experiments;

Quality of Language Usage;

Clarity of Presentation;

Overall Rating;

Remarks to the editor;

Remarks to the Author

Review Process

The manuscript submission and peer review process can be, at its basic level, broken down into the following 7 steps:

The Author submits a manuscript.

The Editor assigns Reviewers to the manuscript.

The Reviewers review the manuscript.

The Editor makes a first decision.

If necessary, the Author makes revisions and resubmits.

The Editor makes a final decision.

The Staff contacts the Author with the decision.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations.

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere

Peer reviewers should:

• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner

• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal

• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others

• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest

• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations

• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments

• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner

• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise

• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct