RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
- Contribution of Double Blind Peer Review
Double Blind Peer review assists the reviewers in making editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. The reviewers don’t know the author’s identity, as any identifying information will be stripped from the document before review. Reviewers’ comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will be made anonymous. The names of the reviewers remain strictly confidential; with their identities known only the Chief Editor.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the Chief Editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the Chief Editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through double blind peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
- Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Chief Editor attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.