Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities:

  • Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications.

  • Because the number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process and the quality of the editorial board are cited as primary influences on a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and standing in the field.

  • Examples of Reviewer Impropriety

    • Misrepresenting facts in a review

    • Unreasonably delaying the review process

    • Unfairly criticizing a competitor’s work

    • Breaching the confidentiality of the review

    • Proposing changes that appear to merely support the reviewer’s own work or hypotheses7

    • Making use of confidential information to achieve personal or professional gain

    • Using ideas or text from a manuscript under review

    • Including personal or ad hominem criticism of the author(s)

    • Failing to disclose a conflict of interest that would have excluded the reviewer from the process

Peer-reviewed responsibilities toward authors

  • Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion

  • Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers

  • Avoiding personal comments or criticism

  • Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper

Peer-reviewed responsibilities toward editors

  • Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the names of potential other reviewers

  • Alerting the editor about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility of a conflict exists 

  • Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review

  • Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author

  • Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful

  • Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal which may be known to the reviewer

  • Refraining from direct author contact

Peer-reviewed responsibilities toward readers

  • Ensuring that the methods are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study, if desired

  • Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by any other researchers/ academicians/scientists/ Scholars.

Impact Factor