Reviewers should work impartially and confidentially. The peer review process
in our Journals could be single- or double-blind, meaning that the reviewer’s identity is not disclosed to the author.
In any case, Reviewers should not contact the Author directly, they should
communicate with the Author for any comments about the manuscript via the
review process.
If the Reviewers think that they might have a conflict of interest in peer-reviewing a manuscript, they should refuse the
review of the manuscript and notify the journal editor.
They should decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting and if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
In order to maintain confidentiality the reviewer, once he/she has concluded the evaluation, should destroy the manuscript. All the information included in the manuscript should remain confidential and should not be used for their own or any other person’s or Organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
They should not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
Reviewers should dive into the reviewing process and respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot take part in the review, and without unduly delay.
They should only undertake the review of a manuscript if they are expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript and they can return a review within the agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension of time.
Reviewers' aim should be objectivity. They have been chosen by the editor for subject knowledge, good judgment, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript.
In their reviews they should be constructive in providing corrections that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.
They should avoid being hostile or denigrator with personal comments. They should remember it is the authors’ paper; corrections and suggestions should be basically sound and clear. They should not be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors.
Reviewers should provide journals with professional information that is specific and a true representation of their expertise.
They should read the manuscript and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the Editor if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items they need to undertake a full process.
They should communicate promptly to the journal if they come in touch with any irregularities
or abuses, regarding ethical approach of the work, such as plagiarism or unethical research.
A conflict of interest may not preclude the reviewer
from studied assessment.
Before a review is conducted, the reviewer that could find himself in a
suspected competing interest should honestly reveal the details to the
publisher. As for other figures of the peer-review process, even for
reviewers a conflict may be of personal, financial, intellectual, political,
religious, professional or otherwise, nature.
The reviewers should follow the designated policy of the journal and
they should notify beforehand if they work at the same institution as the
author, or envisage working there in the future. If, within more recent
years, they have acted in the position of mentor, mentee, a close
collaborator or joint grant holder or have a close personal relationship
with an author, this may constitute a potential conflict of interest.
Reviewers activities and duties in the peer-review process allow the editor of the journal to make decisions about the proposed manuscript and also allow the author to improve their contribution submitted for publication.
Reviewers that are involved in the review process of a manuscript are obliged to communicate to the Editor of the journal any eventual conflicts of interest that may influence their opinion on the manuscript, and should themselves reject the review of the manuscripts in such cases.
Reviewers are asked to state explicitly whether or not there are conflicts respect to that manuscript.
Reviewers should not use the knowledge of the manuscript before it is published, to support their own interests.
If documented violations of any of the above mentioned policies and duties should be find in any of journals published by Praise Worthy Prize, the following sanctions should be applied:
- Immediate rejection of the results of the review processes underway.
- Prohibition for the reviewer for any new review to any journal published by Praise Worthy Prize. This prohibition will be imposed for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 36 months, depending on the seriousness of the violation.
- Prohibition for the reviewer from serving on the Editorial Board of any journal published by Praise Worthy Prize.
In cases where the violations of the above policies are found to be particularly egregious, the publisher reserves the right to impose additional sanctions beyond those described above.