|
1. |
Reviewers
should understand importance of reviewing work:- |
| |
Reviewing, i.e. evaluation of manuscripts is a
very important step in the process of publication of manuscripts.
A scientist should, therefore consider it a moral duty and take utmost
care to, properly, review all manuscripts received for publication.
|
|
2. |
An occasion for return of manuscript to the Editor:- |
| |
A reviewer, if understands himself poorly qualified for judging
manuscripts of research, should return manuscripts at the earliest
time, to the Editor/Chief Editor.
|
|
3. |
A reviewer should have objective approach about judgment:- |
| |
It is strongly expected that the reviewer of manuscripts be impartial.
His/her method of reviewing be objective with reference to the quality and
standard of manuscripts, experimental and theoretical performance,
interpretation and explanation and with a sense of respect and
appreciation. |
|
|
|
4. |
A reviewer should be aware when he/she finds conflict of interest in
the manuscripts received for review:- |
| |
He/she should be careful and aware when he/she finds similarity of interest
between his/her own work in process for publication and that of the work
done by the author of manuscript. He/she should immediately return the
doubtful manuscript to the Editor indicating the conflict of interest
or bias.
The reviewer, for the solution of such problem may insist upon getting
a signed letter of consent that the manuscript would be liable to be
returned to the author at the Editor’s discretion. |
|
|
|
5. |
Manuscripts from relatives should not be reviewed:- |
| |
A reviewer should not review manuscripts, authorized or co-authorized
by a person who is personally professionally, connected with him/her
because it is assumed that such relationship might be based on bias judgment for the manuscript.
|
|
6. |
A manuscript for review should be considered as a secret and
important document:- |
| |
The reviewer of a manuscript should consider the manuscript as a very
important confidential document. He/she should not disclose its
secrecy by telling its theme or showing it to the unreliable person.
However, he/she may show it or discuss its contents with the persons
or experts who may offer special advice. The reviewer in such case
should identify the consulted person to the editor.
|
|
7. |
Complete explanation and support for judgment to convince the
Editor and authors the criteria of comments:- |
| |
A reviewer should perfectly explain and support his/her judgment and
comments made by him/her while evaluating a manuscript, so that the Editor
and authors may understand it.
The relevant criterion should accompany previous statements about
observation derivation or previously made arguments about the review.
The statement without support of reviewer (or opposed by authors) does
not have much value, hence it should be avoided.
|
|
8. |
A reviewer should be vigilant about failure of authors to mention
relevant work by other scientists:- |
| |
A reviewer should be very much careful about failure of authors to
bring forward, as proof the work of other scientists bearing in mind
the complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently
cited may seem self-serving. It is necessary for a reviewer to invite
attention of the Editor about similarity between the manuscripts under
consideration, papers published previously or any manuscript submitted
concurrently to another journal.
|
|
9. |
A reviewer should submit the report, to the Editor, at the earliest
possible time
(maximum 10 days):- |
| |
It is the duty of a reviewer to submit the report about review of
manuscript at the earliest time (maximum 10 days).
|
|
10. |
Reviewers should avoid using unpublished information:- |
| |
Reviewers are advised not to use or leak unpublished information,
arguments or interpretations as are included in manuscripts. They
should seek prior permission of the authors for doing so.
A reviewer should normally discontinue reviewing manuscripts, if his/her
work is found likely to be unprofitable.
It would be proper for the reviewer to write to the author, under
intimation to the Editor about reviewer’s research and plans in the
concerned field.
|
|
11. |
The
criticism on manuscript should be objective:- |
| |
A Reviewer should justify criticism made by other reviewer about the
submitted manuscript, not only that but he/she should be justifiable
agree with such criticism. If such criticism is found appropriate in
published papers.
However, it must be remembered that the reviewer’s attempt of
criticizing the author personally would be totally improper. In short
the criticism should be objective and not subjective. |
|
|