For Reviewers
| Post date: 2024/06/22 |
Principles for reviewers
- Primary duty: Reviewers must act in the interests of readers and the scientific community by evaluating the validity, originality, and clarity of the manuscript.
- Impartiality: Assess the manuscript solely on the quality of its content, avoiding personal bias or competition.
- Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts and all review-related correspondence as confidential until publication.
- Professional conduct: Provide constructive and respectful feedback; avoid personal remarks or language that could reveal your identity in single- or double-blind review systems.
- Framing Recommendations and Arguments
- Recommendation vs. justification: You may give a clear recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject), but the strength of your report lies in the evidence and reasoning you provide, not merely in the categorical choice.
- Balanced appraisal: Explicitly list strengths and weaknesses, separating factual observations (e.g., methodological flaws, missing data) from subjective judgments (e.g., interest to readership).
- Arguments for and against: For each central point, state: (a) what the issue is; (b) why it matters for validity or clarity; (c) how it could be addressed (if feasible).
- Prioritization: Indicate which concerns are critical obstacles to publication (e.g., major design or ethical problems) and which are desirable improvements (e.g., additional analyses, clearer discussion).
- Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Alerts
- 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 public comments to the authors.
- Practical Structure for a Useful Report
- 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 situation, provide a clear heading, concise description, supporting evidence, impact on conclusions, and suggested remedy.
- Minor points and editorial suggestions: Line-by-line or section-specific notes, typographical or stylistic issues, and minor clarifications.
- Recommendation to the editor: State your recommendation and justify it with the key arguments you provided above.
- How Editors Use Reviews
- 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: Editors integrate reviews from different perspectives; provide sufficient methodological detail so the editor can interpret specialist points.
- Confidential comments: Use the confidential comments section to highlight serious ethical concerns or sensitive issues you do not want the authors to see.
- Quick Reviewer Checklist
- Have I declared conflicts of interest and confidentiality issues?
- Have I summarized the manuscript succinctly?
- Are my major criticisms evidence-based and prioritized?
- Have I suggested concrete, feasible remedies where possible?
- Is my tone constructive and professional?
- Have I alerted the editor to any ethical or integrity concerns?
View: 1433 Time(s) | Print: 281 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
