Practical guide for reviewers

Practical guide for peer reviewed articles

 

Being a reviewer:

 

Professional responsibility – When contacted for the preparation of a report, you should accept only if you have the time and knowledge necessary to evaluate the text and be impartial in that same evaluation.

 

Conflict of interests I – If there is uncertainty about a potential case of conflict of interest that jeopardizes the scientific opinion, raise this issue to the journal. Conflicts of interest can be of a personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious nature.

It is important to remain impartial regarding nationality, religion or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors or origins of the text.

 

Punctuality – It is an ethical practice to respond to an invitation to scientifically review an article in a timely manner, even in cases where the reviewer is unable to accept. If the reviewer believes that he/she is qualified to evaluate a particular text, he/she should accept reviewing it only if he/she manages to deliver the opinion within the established or previously agreed deadlines. Always inform the journal in case of changes in circumstances that prevent meeting the established deadline or if you intend to extend the deadline. If reviewing is not possible, you can suggest alternative reviewers, based on the reviewers' expertise.

 

Assessment procedures:

Initial steps – Read the manuscript, additional files and collected materials (instructions for reviewers, required ethics and adopted policies), contacting the journal if something is not clear or you need some information. It is important to map out the objectives of the report before starting (for example, if an opinion regarding the central proposal of the article is expected).

 

Confidentiality – Respect the confidentiality of the double-blind peer review process and do not involve anyone outside the scientific review process of the article without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals assisting with the review must be included or associated with the scientific opinion, for the purpose of recording and crediting their work.

 

Conflicts of interest II – Suspected violations of ethical practices and scientific research standards must be communicated to the journal. For example, if you suspect plagiarism or misconduct relating to research or writing and submission of the article, or substantial similarity between the manuscript and an article already published or submitted to another publication, you must inform the journal.

 

Prepare a report:

Format – Follow the journal's instructions and completely fill in the appropriate form for the report. Be objective and constructive in your opinion, offering feedback that will help authors improve their text. Be specific in your criticisms and provide examples to support these comments. Be professional and avoid making derogatory comments or unsubstantiated accusations.

In case you want to send the Word document with comments, anonymize the comments (in the “Review” panel of Word, select “Record of Changes” and in that window choose “Change username”).

 

Appropriate feedback – Keep in mind that building a report requires a fair, honest and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the text. Confidential comments to the editors must not give room to denigrate or falsely accuse the author and must contribute to improving the presentation of the text.

 

Language and style – Don't try to rewrite the text in your style; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. Additionally, be sensitive to language issues that are a result of the author's style and language.

 

Suggestions for a better work – It is the task of reviewers to comment on the quality and accuracy of the work received. If the work is unclear due to lack of analysis, the reviewer should comment and explain what further analysis would clarify the submitted work. It is not the reviewer's task to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear whether additional research suggestions are essential to support claims made in the text, leaving it to the author's discretion.

 

Responsibility – Prepare the report autonomously, unless authorized by the journal to involve someone else. Do not intentionally lengthen the review process, postponing the submission of the opinion or requesting an unnecessary extension of time to the journal.

 

For more information see: COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9 ©2017 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Version 2: September 2017.