General and Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers 

The reviewers must 
  • agree to review only if you have subject expertise and you can do it in a timely manner
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and do not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process
  • do not use information obtained during the peer-review process for the advantage of any other party 
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews and must not make derogatory personal comments
  • respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and must avoid intentional delay.
  • ensure that suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by any other reason
  • notify the journal as soon as possible if they find that they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they shouldn’t wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process.
  • not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including their junior researchers
  • not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal.
  • bear in mind that the editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgment, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript.
  • remember it is the authors’ paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important.
  • make it clear that which suggested additional study will strengthen or extend the current work.
  • read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
  • try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.