Peer reviewers are experts chosen by journal editors to provide written feedback of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript in order to improve the research report and identify the most suitable and highest quality material for the journal. The review policies follow

 

1. Confidentiality

Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

2. Bias and competing interests

It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations.

3. Suspicion of ethics violations

If the reviewers come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics do let the journal know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice a substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own.

4. Preparing a report format

Follow journals instructions for writing and posting the review. If a particular format or scoring rubric is required, use the tools supplied by the journal. Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.

5. Appropriate feedback

Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Most journals allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. The journal may also ask for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review.  If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see.

6. Suggestions for further work

It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigor of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

7. Accountability

Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors work that is mentioned in the manuscript. Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

(This Publication Ethics is adopted from Committee on Publications Ethics-COPE)

Becoming a Reviewer

To be a reviewer with ALTICS, simply fill in the Reviewer's Application form. Click here.