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.