A reviewer’s plays a key role in scholarly publishing. Reviewers assess research article submissions to journals, based on the requirements of that journal, predefined criteria, and quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented. They deliver comment on the article and the research, recommend improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers. Besides, reviewers have some improprieties by which a review process may be hampered.
Reviewer responsibilities toward authors
Reviewer responsibilities toward editors
Reviewer responsibilities toward readers
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Confidentiality: Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless necessary and approved by the editor.
Constructive critique: Reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed.
Competence: Reviewers who realize that their expertise is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Reviewers need not be expert in every aspect of an article’s content, but they should accept an assignment only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment.
Impartiality and integrity: Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on the relevance to the journal’s scope and mission, without regard to race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, or citizenship of the authors.
Disclosure of conflict of interest: To the extent possible, the review system should be designed to minimize actual or perceived bias on the reviewer’s part. If reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of interest to the editor and ask how best to address it.
Timeliness and responsiveness: Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and submitting it in a timely manner.
Reviewer Impropriety
| • Home | • Journals | • Instruction |