Purpose of Peer-Review
The peer-review process is a crucial component in helping the editor and/or editorial board reach editorial or publishing decisions and may also serve the author in improving the quality of the submission.
A potential reviewer should withdraw from the review process if he/she feels unqualified to assess the contribution or cannot provide an assessment in a timely manner as defined by the editor.
Manuscripts for review must be considered confidential documents. Information concerning the manuscripts should not be discussed with others without the approval of the editor.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles, which they think are involved in conflicts of benefits such as shared financial, organizational, and personal benefits or any connections with other companies, institutes, or related individuals with the essay, the reviewers who may have conflicts of benefits in the field of a special article. This conflict should be clarified for the editor to determine the appropriate level of assessment. For instance, there is a situation where the reviewer is editing and evaluating a similar article in that journal or another along with a similar research article, keep in mind that under the process of double-blind peer-review, as reviewers do not know the authors, it is unlikely that reviewers are aware of the involved conflicts of benefits among authors. Thus, they are not limited by these conflicts. If reviewers become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the editor of the journal.
Reviewers should strive to be objective in their assessments. Reviewers’ comments should be clearly expressed and supported by data or arguments. Personal criticism of the author(s) is not appropriate.
Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Evaluation and studying are professional activities for journals, which have valued the whole profession to be encouraged. It is usually expected that the researchers who submit their articles to a journal accept the journal’s invitation for their article assessment.
Right to refuse and rejection
Abstinence or rejection of the assessment of an article based on time or status is essential. For example, a reviewer who is not qualified enough to review a research article should refrain from assessing the article. By potential conflicts of benefits, reviewers should abstain from their assessment. If the reviewers are asked to assess an article, which has been previously assessed, they should inform the editor of primary evaluation details unless they are asked to reassess.
The publication has a process of double-blind peer-review. Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles, in which they have previously provided written suggestions in the first version. If a reviewer is aware of the author’s identity or co-author’s identity, is involved naturally in assessing the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, telling, and doing whatever reveals their identity for the author.
Reviewers should assess articles objectively, fairly, and professionally. They are recommended to avoid any personal bias in their reviews.
Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process. It is important to recognize whether this article is confidential or not. Reviewers should not discuss with anyone except the editor about the article and they are not allowed to transfer the essay information to someone else. If reviewers are suspected of a wrong deed should inform the editor confidentially, not expressing their worries to other departments till the official announcement.
To assess the article and say recommendations to the author (authors), reviewers should always know that the assessment influences the publishing process. Reviewers should be honest with authors about their relevant article worries. Reviewers ought to define and support their scientific review sufficiently and, it means they should provide details and ample information for the editor to justify their advice to the author. Reviewers cannot be bipolar, for instance, on the one hand, very friendly and intimate assessments facing the author and on the other hand, very sharp assessments in-person discussion with the editor.
Reviewers should act quickly in their assessments and reviews. If a reviewer cannot act on his/her task by a determined deadline (maximum one month) he/she ought to contact the editor for extending the reviewing time or new reviewer selection.