outline

Reviewers responsibilities

Last Update: 02 November, 2024 | 08:21

Reviewers' responsibilities

The reviewer is responsible for both the author and the editor regarding the manuscript. Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications.

Peer reviewer responsibilities toward the author

  1. Providing written, unbiased feedback on time on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work
  2. The reviewers' comments should be clear, relevant to the subject, and accurate, which creates interest in the authors.
  3. Personal & Financial conflicts must be avoided.
  4. The review process should be confidentially maintained.

Peer reviewer responsibilities toward the editor

  1. We notify the editor immediately if unable to review on time and provide the names of other potential reviewers if possible.
  2. Following the editor's written instructions on the journal's expectations of the submitted work
  3. Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it, and giving decisions based on rating
  4. Provide an apparent and levelheaded reason for making decisions based on common ethics
  5. Personal & Financial conflicts should be addressed.
  6. Stave off direct contact with the author without the editor's permission.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality:
    - Reviews and reviewer comments should be held confidentially.
    -Manuscripts or copies of the process shouldn't be retained with the reviewers after the procedure is commenced
  2. Constructive Evaluation: - Decisions and judgments should be constructive and provide legible insight to the author without any controversy or inefficiencies with the review process.
  3. Competence: A reviewer with passable expertise will serve the purpose of completing the review. People lacking adequate expertise should feel responsible and can decline the review.
  4. Impartiality and Integrity: The reviewer's decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, and the scope of the journal instead of on the financial, racial, or ethnic origin of the authors.
  5. Timeliness and Responsiveness: The reviewer should be responsible for completing the review within the appropriate time and taking all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the journal.

Unique Benefits to the Reviewers with Highest Scientific Credit 

  1. A complete waiver on registration and accommodation fees at relevant Brieflands Conferences
  2. Discount on Acceptance fee for the published article.