A peer reviewer holds the following responsibilities: |
Should maintain utmost confidentiality as regards their assignments and should not discuss the same publicly or with colleagues. |
Should not delay the submission of their review/report purposefully. If the reviewer does not have the necessary time to review, he/she should immediately write back to the editor (when initially invited to review), so that the editor can choose another reviewer. If he/she has already accepted to review and is getting delayed in the submission of the review, the same should be brought to the notice of the editor. He/she can also suggest alternate reviewers to the editor/s. |
Should excuse/recuse themselves from the peer review if they have actual/perceived conflict of interest or bias. |
Should not plagiarize the ideas of the authors. |
Should not use the contents of the unpublished manuscripts sent to them for furthering their own interests. |
Give adequate time for reviewing the manuscript and read relevant contemporary literature (if necessary). |
Should not accept review requests on topics outside their expertise. |
Should use courteous language. |
Should never correspond with the authors directly. All reviews/comments should be submitted to the editor. |
Should give a recommendation regarding rejection, revision, or acceptance only if asked to do so by the editor. |
Should not pass the manuscript to juniors or colleagues for helping to write the review. If they cannot review, they should state accordingly to the editor. If they need help or want to mentor juniors, they should obtain permission from the editor for the same and ensure that the junior reviewer is given the necessary credit for helping in the review. |
Should contact and inform the editor immediately if scientific fraud, author misconduct, or plagiarism is suspected. |
Should not retain the manuscript for their personal use and destroy the paper and electronic copies after submitting their reviews. |
Should not allow personal biases to affect the content of their review. |
Should act as “advocate” of the author (i.e., help the authors in improvising their manuscript and explain their research idea to the reader) and the journal (help to maintain the high-quality of the manuscripts accepted by the journal) as well. |
Should treat all manuscripts in a way he/she would want his/her manuscript to be treated. |
Should not give vague or generic criticisms but should be more clear, objective, and fair. |