|
The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript.
Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that:
“Conflict of Interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests” WAME.
“Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists” ICMJE. Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality of the review process, ensuring that all information regarding the manuscript and the review procedure remains confidential both during and after the assessment. “Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others,” as emphasized by COPE. Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are authors’ private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details. Reviewers therefore should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers must not publicly discuss authors’ work and must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews. Reviewers who seek assistance from a trainee or colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals’ contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. Reviewers should not upload manuscripts to softwares or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. This restriction exists since the data goes and how it is stored or used by AI systems is largely opaque. Besides, reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Reviews should be honest and objective and not be influenced by:
In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following issues:
All reviewers are encouraged to review manuscripts using CHECKLIST specific to different study types, to ensure a comprehensive review process.
Reviewers should also observe that the author(s) have followed the instructions for authors, editorial policies, and publication ethics. The report should be accurate, objective, constructive, and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments concerning the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.
Reviewers should only accept a manuscript when they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time to reviewing it. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner. Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:
Recommendations should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript. You can also find basic training for reviewer tasks and a step-by-step guide to reviewing a manuscript on the journal’s website through this link.
|