Only reviewer with fair expertise should complete the review. Assigned Reviewer with inadequate expertise should feel responsible to decline the review as it is presumed that reviewer will be an expert in the respective field.
Reviewers should not share any information from an assigned manuscript with outsiders without prior permission from the Editor or preserve the data from an assigned manuscript.
Reviewer comments should appreciate positive aspects of the work, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the enhancement needed. A reviewer should explain and support his or her judgment clearly enough to enable the Editors and Authors to understand the basis of the comments. The reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been previously reported is accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the Editor when he or she becomes aware of duplicate publication. A reviewer should not use any kind of abusive language while commenting on an article. Judgment of each article should be done without any bias and personal interest by the assigned reviewer.
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
To the extent feasible, the reviewer should minimize the conflict of interest. The reviewer should notify the editor describing the conflict of interest.
Impartiality and Integrity
Reviewer’s decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, and scope of the journal rather than financial, racial, ethnic origin etc., of the authors.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
They provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the editor but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome.
Timeliness and Responsiveness
To the extent feasible, the reviewer should minimize the conflict of interest. Reviewer should notify the editor describing the conflict of interest.