As a reviewer, it is crucial to take into account a number of ethical and practical guidelines when reviewing publications. Our aim is to build a robust and reliable community of reviewers, and to this end we need to stipulate a series of best practices.
Before accepting the review
When you are invited or suggested to review an article, make sure that:
- There is no conflict of interest with the article, the author or its content.
- You are an expert and qualified in the discipline(s) covered in the article.
- You have enough time to meet the deadline.
- Your opinion and vision of the author is totally neutral.
- Read and analyze the entire article, including extra files such as tables, graphs, images...
- Demonstrate your understanding of the article by analysing both general and specific aspects.
- Be critical, but always respectful. The objective should be to collaborate with the author to improve the publication.
- Focus on the scientific content. Avoid using a disrespectful tone in your review.
- Meet the deadline. Realistically calculate how much time you will have to invest in the revision.
- Avoid any kind of bias
- Be specific in your comments. The author should be able to understand and follow your criteria by reading your notes.
- The review should be written in good, understandable English.
Once you have reviewed the article, a final decision is required. There are three types of decisions you can make about a publication.
- Accepted: The publication requires no further revision.
- Minor Revision Required: The article can be published after some minor revisions according to the reviewer's criteria.
- Major Revision Required: The publication is unacceptable for publication. Major substantive reviews must be done.