- By accepting the review, the reviewer confirms to be an independent expert and to meet the fixed deadlines.
- Handles information included in submitted yet-unpublished contribution as confidential content and guarantees that s/he will not hand it over to any third party or use it to his/her personal benefit.
- Writes a review to help the author to improve the quality of their work.
- If s/he founds out a possible conflict of interests or has a reasonable suspicion of plagiarism regarding the contribution, reports this fact to the editors.
Review Form (download)
The reviewers shall follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
The reviewer's primary duties:
Acceptance of invitation: After receiving an invitation from the editor, the reviewer should carefully consider whether they have the necessary expertise to review the manuscript. If they accept the invitation, they should respond promptly to the editor.
Initial evaluation: The reviewer should begin by reading the manuscript carefully and assessing whether it falls within the journal's scope and meets the publication standards. If the manuscript is inappropriate for publication, the reviewer should inform the editor immediately.
Detailed evaluation: The reviewer should provide a careful review of the manuscript, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses and suggestions for improvement. The assessment should be objective, constructive, and free of personal biases.
Assessment of originality and significance: The reviewer should evaluate the essence and relevance of the research and provide a clear assessment of its contribution to the field.
Evaluation of methodology and data analysis: The reviewer should evaluate the methodology and data analysis, ensuring they are appropriate and accurate. Any shortcomings or limitations in the methodology should be identified and addressed.
Assessment of ethical issues: The reviewer should identify any ethical issues related to the research, such as plagiarism, fraudulent data, or unethical practices. If there are any concerns, they should be discussed with the editor.
Recommendation: Based on the evaluation, the reviewer should recommend the manuscript's suitability for publication to the editor. The recommendation can be accepted, accepted with revisions, or rejection.
Confidentiality: The reviewer should maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process. They should not discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone else without permission from the editor.
Timeliness: The reviewer should provide the review within the specified timeframe or notify the editor if they cannot do so.
Communication: The reviewer should communicate with the editor if they have any questions or concerns and provide any additional information or clarification requested by the editor.
Resources for Reviewers
- COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
- COPE: Peer review processes
- Publons for Reviewers (Verifying Reviews)
- Web of Science Academy
- Elsevier Researcher Academy
Review by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Pix4free