|
|
Reviewer Guidelines
The responsibilities of a reviewer can be summarized as follows.
In confidential comments to the Review Editor:
Elaborate on your evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the
manuscript and physiological significance of the findings in your
confidential remarks to the Editor. State whether you judge the findings to
1) represent a breakthrough in understanding; 2) be of major importance; 3)
be of minor importance, advancing the field only incrementally or not at
all. State (yes or no) if you would rank the overall quality/impact of this
manuscript in the top 25% of manuscripts you have reviewed in the filed.
In comments to the Author:
Include in your critique your judgment of the physiological significance
of the findings, the clarity of the rationale and hypothesis, accuracy of
the experimental design, methods and statistical analysis, quality of data
presentation, length and quality of Discussion, and inclusion of appropriate
references. Submit general comments first, and then specific comments for
revision. Do not indicate any ethical issues in Comments to the Author;
those should go in the Comments to the Editor. Do not reveal your decision
recommendation to the author, but do make your comments diplomatically
congruent with those that are in the Comments to the Editor.
Ethical responsibilities of a reviewer:
- The reviewer should provide an honest, critical assessment of
the research. The reviewer’s job is to analyze the strengths
and weaknesses of the research, provide suggestions for
improvement, and clearly state what must be done to raise the
level of enthusiasm for the work. The reviewer should not
manipulate the process to force the authors to address issues
interesting or important to the reviewer but peripheral to
the objective(s) of the study.
- The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the existence
and substance of the manuscript. It is not appropriate to share
the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others or even
to reveal the existence of the submission before publication.
There are some exceptions, if approved by the editor. One
exception is that the reviewer may want a junior colleague to
have the experience of reviewing and therefore may ask
him/her to collaborate on a review. However, if this is done,
your collaborator on the review should also agree to maintain
confidentiality, and the editor should be informed of the
participation of this additional person.
- The reviewer must not participate in plagiarism. It is obviously
a very serious transgression to take data or novel concepts
from a paper to advance your own work before the manuscript
is published.
- The reviewer should always avoid, or disclose, any
conflicts of interest. For example, the reviewer should
decline to review a manuscript on a subject in which
he/she is involved in a contentious dispute and
does not feel that a fair review can be provided.
The reviewer should also avoid biases that influence the
scientific basis for a review. Another example is
if the reviewer has a close personal or professional
relationship with one or more of the authors such that
his/her objectivity would be compromised.
Scientific merit should be the basis for all reviews.
- The reviewer should accept manuscripts for review only in
his/her areas of expertise. Although editors try very hard to
match manuscripts with the most expert reviewers, sometimes
mistakes are made. It is unfair to the authors and to the
overall review process if the referee does not have the
expertise to review the manuscript adequately. The exception
to this general rule is when an editor specifically asks for
your view as a "nonexpert" or seeks your opinion on a special
aspect of the manuscript (e.g., statistics).
- The reviewer should agree to review only those
manuscripts that can be completed on time. Sometimes,
unforeseen circumstances arise that preclude a reviewer
from meeting a deadline, but in these instances
the reviewer should immediately contact the
editor. It is unfair to the authors of the manuscript for
reviews to be inordinately delayed by tardy
referees. Delaying a review can sometimes lead to charges
by the authors that the reviewers (who undoubtedly work
in the same area) are "stonewallng" in order to
publish their related work first, thus establishing
priority.
- The reviewer also has the unpleasant responsibility of
reporting suspected duplicate publication, fraud,
plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of
animals or humans in the research being reported.
- The reviewer should write reviews in a collegial,
constructive manner. The reviewer should not shy
away from discussing the weaknesses (or strengths)
of a study, however. No one likes to have a paper
rejected, but a carefully worded review with
appropriate suggestions for revision can be very helpful.
Excerpted from Benos DJ, Kevin Kirk L, and Hall
JE.
How to review
a paper. Advan Physiol Edu 27: 47-52, 2003
|
|
