Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers 
The others (Plus EiC, Editors in Chief, External Reviewer).
01   Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward authors
  • Providing written, unbiased feedback on time on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work.
  • Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant, and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers.
  • Avoiding personal comments or criticism.
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.
02   Peer-reviewed responsibilities toward editors
  • Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review promptly.
  • Alerting the editor about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
  • Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.
  • Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author.
  • Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful.
  • Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal, which may be known to the reviewer.
  • Refraining from direct author contact.
03   Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward readers
  • Ensuring that the methods are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study, if desired,
  • Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other scientists.
Contribution to editorial decisions 
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviewers provide an objective assessment of the manuscript's scholarly merits, scientific accuracy, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.
 Promptness
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly and submitting their assessment within the agreed timeframe. 
Confidentiality 

Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless necessary and approved by the editor. Material submitted for peer review is a privileged communication that should be treated in confidence, taking care to guard the author’s identity and work. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and should not use the knowledge of their content for any purpose unrelated to the peer review process. Submitted manuscript should not be uploaded into AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured without authors’ or editor’s explicit permission.

Although it is expected that the editor and reviewers will have access to the material submitted, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will remain strictly confidential. If a reviewer is unsure about the policies for enlisting the help of others in the review process, he or she should ask the editor.

Standards of objectivity 
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers' comments should be based solely on the paper's scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing.
Acknowledgement of sources 
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest 
Reviewers are required to reveal any potential personal or financial conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or content of manuscripts they are asked to review. If reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of interest to the editor and ask how best to address it. Reviewers are required to sign disclosure forms to declare conflict of interest.