Reviewer Information

Standards
Manuscript submissions – areas for consideration
Decisions based on peer reviews

Peer review is a critical part of the process of publishing high-quality manuscripts. The Journal recognises the time that reviewers devote to getting this process right, and reviewers will receive CPD certificates for each review undertaken. Reviews are subject to quality monitoring processes.

In order to be effective, peer review needs to be approached in an ethical and systematic manner, with the aim of getting the most out of the manuscript. This is a constructive process and not a destructive one, and authors should come away from a review with clear suggestions for how the manuscript can be improved.

Standards

Reviewers for the Journal should ensure that they adhere to best practice standards such as those from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), namely:

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively.
  • Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary and not be defamatory or libellous.
  • Reviewers should declare any competing interests.
  • Reviewers should decline to 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.
  • Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
  • If a reviewer wants to pass a review request onto a colleague, they should get the editor’s permission beforehand.

Areas for consideration

It is also important that reviewers address the critical areas of a manuscript, such as:

  • importance of the subject
  • originality of the paper
  • strengths and weaknesses of the review and the methods used: Best one to answer the question? Are the statistics appropriate? Is there missing data?
  • presentation: are the methods described in sufficient detail? Are the results presented appropriately? Can the writing be improved?
  • interpretation of the literature or results: is it comprehensive and supported by the data?

Decisions based on peer reviews

The editorial team will take into consideration the information provided by the peer reviewers when making their decisions on suitability. The possible outcomes of this process are:

  • Accept the manuscript in its current form without amendment
  • Accept the manuscript with revisions
  • Reject the manuscript

 

Last updated: June 12, 2016 at 22:40 pm