Ethic Code for Reviewers

Peer-review is a critical part of the publishing a scholarly work, it ensure that work published is correct and are of high standards. Peer-review process works primarily on trust and displaying the ethical behavior. Reviewer should adhere to following practices while accepting the any work for review

Completing review process

Once manuscript is accepted by you, you will make sure the manuscript review process is completed in all respect.

Sharing of Information.

Information shared during registration is accurate and a fair representation of expertise. It is important to recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct (e.g. see COPE Case 12-12: Compromised peer review in published papers).

Area of Expertise.

We understand area of expertise shared by you is accurate, and journal accepted for review by you is from your domain and would be able to do justice to review of manuscript. In case manuscript assigned to you is not from area of expertise and you think that you will not be able to do justice to manuscript, you will share the same with the Journal.

Conflict of Interest

While accepting the manuscript of review, as a reviewer you will declare all conflict of interest that may prevent you from reviewing the manuscript in the fair and ethical manner. If you may feel that their may arise conflict of interest in near future(i.e. before review is complete), please share the same with the journal. Conflict of interest may arise because of personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature.

In unforeseen circumstances, incase condition changes which may rise conflict of interest, inform the journal promptly before continuing the work of review.

Relationship to Author or scholarly work

If you are working in the same institute or is a mentor to mentors, mentee, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you will not agree to review the Manuscript.

Get insight into work

You will not accept to review the manuscript just for sake of going through the scholarly work, instead of accepting and reviewing the work.

Timeliness in Responses

If a manuscript is assigned to you, you will respond to request for accepting the manuscript in a timely manner. Usually timeframe is 2 - 3 days from the day, Manuscript is put in your worklist.

Response provided should be appropriate comments.

Do inform journal by updating the comments in workflow, incase you need extension to review.

Suggestion for Reviewer

Incase you feel you are not able to accept manuscript for review either due to conflict of interest or busy schedule or any other reason, it is advised to suggest the reviewer to journal who would be able to justice to review of Manuscript.

Unbiased review

You will be unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review at any point of time, notify the journal and seek advice

Feedback form

Please refer to feedback form attached in the workflow comments for comments provided by editor or authors. you can either use the same documents or add new documents. Feedback form can be found here.

You the appropriate professional language, while provide the feedback to the manuscript. The feedback provided should not denigration or put false accusation on any one because of any known or unknown reasons. Any use of language which is libellous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations may lead to blocking of account (e.g. see COPE Case 08-13:Personal remarks within a post-publication literature forum)

Feedback provided should not try to change the language used by author. feedback should be based on completeness of the work from technical and data perspective.

Feedback should not be based on the language used by the author, reviewer should be sensitive to language used. Language used by author may or may not their first language.

Feedback provided should fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Suggestions for further work:

It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigour of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted.

Reviewer should not suggest on the work to done which is out of scope of current work done by the author

Accountability

Reviewer must provide prepare the report or provide the feedback on their own.

Language used is professional and not derogatory in any way to either the author or editor or journal.

Feedback provided should be constructive and not negative in any nature.

Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work.

Manuscript if given for review should not be used either used for personal gain and used as its own work.

Reviewer should be accept the re-request from journals for reviewing the resubmission of manuscript after publication.

If you are the editor handling a manuscript and decide to provide a review of that manuscript yourself (perhaps if another reviewer could not return a report), do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous additional reviewer.

Confidentiality

Reviewer should not reveal the details of Journals/Manuscript post review process is complete.

Reviewer should not use the work done by authors and claim that it is done by them without any claim.