Image: Future developments

We ask peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to ensure the following criteria are taken into account for those submitted manuscripts they have agreed to peer review.

Although authors' identities are normally anonymised, content within a manuscript may reveal an author's identity, or aspects of identity. In such cases, a peer reviewer of a manuscript must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication, and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author (s).

A peer reviewer should declare any conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is related to the peer reviewer's own work. A peer reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the peer reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.

A peer reviewer should treat the peer review process as entirely confidential, and neither the submitted manuscript, nor information about the submitted manuscript, nor correspondence related to their peer review should be shared or circulated to any person not engaged in the peer review process.

A peer reviewer should provide a comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report.

A peer reviewer should be alert to the failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, and should call to the Editor-In-Chief / Journal Editor's attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal of which she or he is aware.

A peer reviewer should make all reasonable effort to submit her or his report and recommendation in a timely manner.

A peer reviewer must avoid making statements in submitted articles which might be construed as impugning any person's reputation.

An author must declare any potential conflict of interest that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript, and acknowledge funding.

Editor’s Advice to Reviewers

  • Be Critical: It is easier for an editor to overturn very critical comments than to overturn favourable comments;
  • Justify all criticisms by specific references to the text of the paper or to published literature. Vague criticisms are unhelpful;
  • Don’t repeat information from the paper, such as the title and authors names, since this already appears elsewhere in the review form;
  • Check the Aims & Scope of the Journal’s to ensure that your comments are in accordance with journal policy;
  • Give a clear recommendation. Don't put "I Will Leave The Decision To The Editor" unless you are genuinely unsure of your recommendation;
  • Number your comments so that the authors can easily refer to them;
  • Be Specific: refer to line numbers in the paper or to exact regions where you wish changes to occur;
  • Be careful not to identify yourself by your comments or by the file name of your report if you submit it as a Word file.