Code of Conduct for Reviewers

RECIPROCITY

Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the field as a whole, and should be encouraged. Authors who submit manuscripts to the journal are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review manuscripts for the journal.

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER-REVIEW

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby both the Authors and the Reviewers do not know each other. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of knowledge. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by the Editor-in-Chief to provide assessment of a written research manuscript, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.

The full paper undergoes a double-blind peer-review by Reviewers, who revise the paper without bias, avoiding personal criticisms concerning the Authors, and properly motivating their judgments. They shall structure their observations in order to improve the clarity of the paper contents, and any potential criticisms has to be constructive.

QUALITY OF REVIEW

Manuscripts received by the journal will be evaluated by the Editorial Board that will judge whether a manuscript is of potential interest to the readers of the journal. Manuscripts that are of interest, formatted according to the guideline for Authors and presented fairly well are sent for review. Typically one or two reviewers are employed. Manuscript may be sent to other specialized experts such as on statistics or a particular technique where a scientist in that particular technique is needed to evaluate it.

Reviewers are assessed on the quality of review and other performance characteristics by the Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal quality and performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to the journal’s Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editor-in Chief but otherwise kept confidential. Reviewers should avoid doing or saying anything that could identify them to the Authors of a manuscript they are reviewing or reviewed.

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. A good review includes the following inputs from the reviewers:

  1. Identify and comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design and characterization methods.
  2. Comment accurately and constructively on the quality of the Author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
  3. Comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
  4. Comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of substandard scientific conduct.
  5. Provide the Authors with useful suggestions to improve the manuscript.
  6. Comments should be constructive and professional. Personal comments regarding the Authors are not permitted.
  7. Comment on the work and not the Authors.
  8. Provide the Editor-in-Chief with the proper context and perspective to make a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief then makes a decision based on the reviewers' recommendation, as follows:

  1. Accept without revisions;
  2. Accept with minor revisions to be made by the Authors;
  3. Return to the Authors for major modifications, Authors to revise & resubmit for another round of reviews depending on the request of the reviewers;
  4. Reject, with encouragement for resubmission; reasons for rejection must be given by the Editor-in Chief
  5. Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems, or if the work constitutes any unethical publishing behavior. The Editor in-Chief must give the reasons for rejection.

Reviewers can recommend for particular course of action. However, the Editor-in-Chief may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice from different reviewers. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the Editor-in-Chief with the information on which a decision should be based.

All reviewers are informed of the journal's expectations, and Editor-in-Chief will make every effort to assist reviewers in improving the quality of review. The Editor-in-Chief will access the quality of review routinely by ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics periodically.

RESPONSIBILITY OF REVIEWERS

Reviewers should assess the manuscript sent to them for scope, accuracy, quality, relevance and contribution to the field. They should inform and return the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief if they decide that the manuscript is not within their field of expertise or that they are not able to complete the review in the stated time.

The manuscript for review is privileged information. Reviewers must treat it as confidential and it should not be retained or copied in whatever means. The manuscript should not be shared with the Reviewers’ colleagues without the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers and Editor-in Chief must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication. Such use may constitute as conflict of interest and is an unacceptable behavior.

In cases of suspected misconduct, Reviewers should notify the Editor-in-Chief in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties. Reviewers must review all submissions objectively, fairly and professionally. Reveal any ethical misconduct encountered while reviewing to the Editor-in-Chief for further action.

Moreover, Reviewers should ensure the originality of a submission and be alert to any plagiarism and redundant publication and must not discuss the content of the submission without permission. Lastly, Reviewers are expected to adhere to the time allocated for the review process. Requests for extension to review the submission is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

TIMELINESS

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline, he/she should inform the Editor-in-Chief immediately to determine whether a longer time period or another Reviewer should be appointed. Typically, the time to complete a review is four weeks.