International Journal of Reverse Pharmacology and Health Research

Peer Reviewers’ Guidelines

Introduction
Conflict of Interest
Confidentiality
Plagiarism
Fairness
Review reports
Timelines
Recommendations
Resources

Introduction

The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript.

IJRPHR journal operates a double blind peer review system. Before accepting to review a manuscript reviewers should ensure that, have to perform critical review and can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

Peer reviewers must ensure that they answer the following questions in their report:

o In general, is the paper easy to follow and does it have a logical flow?

o Does the English grammar, punctuation or spelling need to be corrected?

o Does the paper fit the aims and scope of the journal? (Each journal has an "Aims and Scope" link on the upper right of its home page).

o Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the work?

o Are the results novel? Does the study provide an advance in the field?

o Did the study gain ethical approval appropriate to the country in which the research was performed if human or animal subjects were involved and is it stated in the manuscript?

o Are the methods clear and replicable?

o Is the statistical analysis appropriate to the study design?

o Are the controls appropriate for the study design?

o Do all the results presented match the methods described?

o Is the data clearly and appropriately presented using clear language?

o Did the authors make the underlying data available to the readers?

o Do the conclusions correlate to the results found?

o Does the paper raise any ethical concerns?

o Are images appropriate for the article? If there are any concerns about duplication or manipulation in images, please raise potential issues by email or in your report. Please refer to our image manipulation policy.

Conflict of Interest
“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests” WAME.
”Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. ICMJE

Confidentiality
Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review processes is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.

Plagiarism
        ‘The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own’ Oxford Dictionaries. It is unethical for reviewers to “use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others” COPE

Fairness
        Reviews should be honest and objective. Reviewers should not be influenced by:
                • The origin of the manuscript
                • Religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author
                • Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author

Review reports
In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:

• Originality
• Contribution to the field
• Technical quality
• Clarity of presentation
• Depth of research

Reviewers should also:

• Observe that the author(s) have followed the instruction for authors, editorial policies and publication ethics.
• Observe that the appropriate journal’s reporting guidelines is followed

The report should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should avoid using “hostile, derogatory and accusatory comments”. Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.

Timeliness
Reviewers should only accept manuscript that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.

Recommendations

Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:

- Accept

• Requires minor corrections

• Requires moderate revision

• Requires major revision

• Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal):

• Reject

Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.

Resources

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

• ICMJE - Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process