The material which is under review must not be shared or talked about anyone outside the process of review unless necessary and given consent by the editor. Sample correspondence related to this topic is available on the ARCC website.Constructive Criticism
The work submitted for peer review is a highly privileged communication that should be kept in discretion, being mindful to protect the author’s identity and work.
The comments of the reviewer should appreciate the positive aspects of the material under review, identify the negative ones in a constructive manner, and suggest the improvements required. This process if not followed properly leaves the author confused and directionless about the submitted work.Competence
A reviewer must explain and support his/her judgment clearly enough that the authors and editors can understand the comments as correctly as possible.
Reviewers who understand that their specialty on the subject of the manuscript is limited are responsible to make their level of capabilities clear to the editor.Impartiality and Integrity
Reviewers are not required to be specialists in every element of a manuscript’s content, but they should accept a project only if they have proper experience to provide an authoritative evaluation.
The comments and conclusions of Reviewer should be based on an objective and unbiased assessment of the studies be it personal or professional.Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
All comments by the reviewers should be based exclusively on the scientific merit of the paper, its authenticity, and quality of writing along with the relevance to the journal’s mission and scope, irrespective of the ethnic origin, race, religion, sex, or citizenship of the authors.
The review system should be created to lessen the actual or assumed bias on the part of the reviewer.Timeliness and Responsiveness
If reviewers have any interest that might affect the objective review in any way, they should either reject the role of reviewer or reveal their conflict of interest to the editor and take suggestions on how to address it in the best way possible.
Reviewers are responsible for acting swiftly, complying to the instructions for a review’s completion, and submitting it in a timely and proper manner. Failure to follow this affects the review process severely so every effort must be made to finish the review within the time frame.Examples of Reviewer Impropriety
If because of any reason, it’s not possible to meet the review’s deadline, the reviewer should quickly reject to perform the review or should inquire whether or not some adjustment can be made in regard to the deadline.
- Presenting the facts in a review in the wrong manner.
- Delaying the review process unnecessarily.
- Criticizing a competitor’s work unfairly.
- Breaching the secrecy of the review.
- Suggesting changes that appear to support the reviewer’s own work.
- Misusing confidential information for personal motives.
- Stealing ideas or texts from a manuscript under review.
- Including personal criticism of the author.
- Failing to reveal a conflict of interest that would have shunned the reviewer from the procedure.