[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Journal Information::
Instructions for Authors::
Instructions for Reviewers::
Articles archive::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
:: Reviewers responsibilities ::
 | Post date: 2022/07/20 | 

Reviewers' responsibilities

The reviewer is responsible for both the author and the editor regarding the manuscript. Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications.

Peer reviewer responsibilities towards the author

  1. Providing written, unbiased feedback on time on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work
  2. Comments given by the reviewers should be clear and relevant to the subject, and accurate, which creates interest to the authors.
  3. Personal & Financial conflicts must be avoided.
  4. The review process should be confidentially maintained.

Peer reviewer responsibilities towards the editor

  1. We notify the editor immediately if unable to review on time and provide the names of other potential reviewers if possible.
  2. Following the editor's written instructions on the journal's expectations of the submitted work
  3. Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it, and giving decisions based on rating
  4. Provide an apparent and levelheaded reason for giving decisions based on common ethics
  5. Personal & Financial conflicts should be alerted.
  6. Stave off direct contact with the author without the editor's permission.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Reviews and reviewer comments should be held confidentially. manuscripts or copies of the process shouldn't be retained with the reviewers after the procedure is commenced
  2. Constructive Evaluation: Decisions and judgment should be constructive that provide legible insight to the author without any controversy or inefficiencies with the review process.
  3. Competence: Reviewer with passable expertise will serve the purpose of completing the review. People lacking adequate expertise should feel responsible and can decline the review.
  4. Impartiality and Integrity: Reviewer's decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, the scope of the journal instead of on the financial, racial, or ethnic origin of the authors.
  5. Timeliness and Responsiveness: Reviewer should be responsible for completing the review within the appropriate time and take all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the journal.
View: 276 Time(s)   |   Print: 39 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)
Journal of Human Genetics and Genomics Journal of Human Genetics and Genomics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.04 seconds with 41 queries by YEKTAWEB 4642