SEREIN
journals give importance to the role of reviewers as it is the only method
of ensuring that the article contains the desired and useful information in it.
The core role of the reviewer is the following but not limited into:
• Goes through the
research papers submitted by authors for publishing;
• Ensures the
standards of the scientific process by being a part of the peer review system;
• Finds
inconsistencies in those papers and give their valuable opinion in an article;
• Maintains the
quality of the journal by identifying invalid research;
• Fulfills a
sense of responsibility to the community and their expertise in research;
• Develops
relationships with esteemed colleagues and their journals, and assists them in
getting more opportunities to join an editorial board;
• Prevents
unethical practices by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other
issues;
• Makes sure
that their suggestions aren’t personal, informal, or unprofessional; as well as
the reports must be given as constructively as possible.
v Reviewer Responsibilities Toward Editors
1. Notifying the
editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the
names of potential other reviewers
2. Alerting the editor
about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to
review when a possibility of a conflict exists
3. Complying
with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the
scope, content, and quality of the review
4. Providing a
thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work,
which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author
5. Determining
scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to
improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating
scale the editor deems most useful
6. Noting any
ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment
of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed
manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to
another journal which may be known to the reviewer
7. Refraining
from direct author contact
v Reviewer Impropriety
• Expressing
the facts in a review in the wrong manner;
• Adjourning
the review process unnecessarily;
• Disapproving
a competitor’s work unfairly;
• Penetrating
the secrecy of the review;
• Suggesting
changes that appear to support the reviewer’s own work;
• Misusing
confidential information for personal motives;
• Stealing
ideas or texts from a manuscript under review;
• Including
personal criticism of the author;
• Failing to
reveal a conflict of interest that would have shunned the reviewer from the
procedure.