Excerpt from the P.I.E. Guidelines for Reviewers – Expectations

1 A manuscript which a reviewer has previously assessed for another publication may have changed between the two submissions. It is imperative a fresh assessment is conducted to reflect different criteria for evaluation and acceptance of another journal.

2 Suggestions for the instigation of an alternative reviewer must not be influenced by personal considerations or with any intention that analysis of the manuscript should benefit from a specific outcome, whether positive or negative.

3 If a reviewer cannot commit to providing unbiased comment with fair judgment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work, they should decline to review.

4 An offer to review a manuscript must be declined if a reviewer has been involved with aspects of the work, such as reporting, research or writing.

5 A manuscript which has been passed to a reviewer for professional comment may be of similar nature or written content to one currently under analysis by the same reviewer or under consideration for publication at another publishing house. In this instance an offer to review must be declined.6 Whereupon the journal’s peer-review is not in accordance with the reviewer’s accepted strategy, this may affect their review of the document or invalidate it.

7 A reviewer should not view a manuscript or any material associated with it whilst awaiting news from an editor that may rescind the request to review.

8 Prior to the review process, a reviewer must agree to undertake sufficient study of the manuscript and any supporting material such as data files, instructions, statements of policy and ethics. If any matter is not clear or an item is incomplete, a reviewer must notify the publisher before beginning the review.

9 Suggestions for additional investigations to support claims made in the manuscript must be separated from those intended to strengthen or extend the work.

10 Recommendations for change should be reported consistently to editors and authors, based on valid academic or technological reasons, not merely to enhance visibility of the review or include citations or references to the reviewer’s work.

11 If the reviewer is the editor of the manuscript, they must be transparent and not submit the work under the pretext it is from an unknown reviewer.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *