ETHICS FOR REVIEWERS
If you receive a proposal to review a manuscript, consider it thoroughly, whether you have the necessary specialist expertise, before you provide your final answer. Agree to it only when you are certain that it is the case.
If you feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or know that its prompt review will be impossible, please notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process.
A good review has to be impartial. Before you take the decision on accepting a manuscript for review, look into any potential conflicts which might impact your perceptions, including personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious conflicts. If you are not certain, whether a conflict is in place, report your concerns to the Editor.
If a you suggests that an author should include citations to yours (or your associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing your citation count or enhancing the visibility of your work (or that of yours associates).
DATES AND DEADLINES
It is good to respond to a manuscript review proposal within a reasonable period of time, even if you are unable to carry out the review yourself. It will shorten the waiting time for publication. If you believe you have the necessary competences to review a particular manuscript, and there are no conflicts of interest, consider the timeframe proposed by the editorial team. If you believe that the time you have been given in insufficient, inform the Editorial Board about a more realistic deadline for the review. Always inform the Editors without delay, if your situation changes, resulting in your inability to deliver the review, or in a change in schedule. If you cannot perform the review, recommend other reviewers to the Editorial Board.
Any manuscripts received treat as confidential documents and must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
ALERTNESS TO ETHICAL ISSUES
You should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which you has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.