| Post date: 2024/06/22 |
Principles for reviewers
- Primary duty: Reviewers should act in the interests of readers and the scientific community by assessing the validity, originality, and clarity of the work.
- Impartiality: Evaluate the manuscript on its own merits, avoiding personal bias or competition.
- Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts and review correspondence as confidential until published.
- Professional conduct: Provide constructive, respectful feedback; avoid ad hominem remarks or language that could identify the reviewer in single-blind systems.
- Recommendation vs. justification: You may give a clear recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject), but the weight of your report lies in the evidence and reasoning you provide, not the categorical choice.
- Balanced appraisal: Explicitly list strengths and weaknesses, separating factual observations (e.g., methodological flaws, data gaps) from subjective judgments (e.g., interest to readership).
- Arguments for and against: For each major point, state: (a) what the issue is; (b) why it matters for validity or clarity; (c) how it could be addressed (if feasible).
- Prioritize issues: Mark which concerns are fatal to publication (e.g., major design or ethics problems) and which are desirable improvements (e.g., additional analyses, clearer discussion).
- Declare conflicts: Promptly inform the editor of any real or perceived conflicts (financial, professional, personal) that could bias your review.
- Report ethical concerns: If you suspect plagiarism, falsified data, undeclared competing interests, or ethical problems with the research (e.g., missing ethics approval), raise these confidentially with the editor rather than noting them in the public reviewer comments.
- Summary (2–4 sentences)
- Concise statement of the study’s question, approach, and main findings.
- General assessment (3–6 sentences)
- Overall judgment of novelty, significance, and suitability for the journal.
- Major concerns (ordered by importance)
- For each: clear heading; concise description; evidence; impact on conclusions; suggested remedy.
- Minor points and editorial suggestions
- Line-by-line or section-specific notes, typographical or stylistic issues, and small clarifications.
- Recommendation to editor
- State your recommendation and justify it with the key arguments you provided above.
- Context for decisions: Editors weigh reviewers’ arguments rather than vote counts; strong, well-evidenced critiques carry more influence than unsubstantiated assertions.
- Respect for diverse expertise: Recognize that editors will integrate reviews from different perspectives; provide sufficient methodological detail so the editor can interpret specialist points.
- Confidential comments: Use the confidential comments to the editor to highlight serious ethical concerns or any sensitive issues you do not want the authors to see.
- Did I declare conflicts and confidentiality issues?
- Have I summarised the manuscript succinctly?
- Are my major criticisms evidence‑based and prioritized?
- Have I suggested concrete, feasible remedies where possible?
- Are tone and language constructive and professional?
- Have I alerted the editor to any ethical or integrity concerns?
View: 1347 Time(s) |
Print: 268 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
