Peer-reviewer Selection and Editors' Responsibilities
| Post date: 2024/08/24 |
Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest, and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning, and collegiality are highly desirable.
Editor Responsibilities:
Editor Responsibilities:
● Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that obtaining two independent peer reviewers may not be possible in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields. In such cases, the editor (s) may wish to decide to publish based on one peer review report. When deciding based on one report, editor (s) are expected only to do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out below.
● Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly concerning the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the results support the conclusions. Editorial decisions should be based on peer-reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer-reviewer reports that do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
● Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. At least one reviewer should review each manuscript the author did not suggest.
● Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries, or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the editor (s); if the topic is not in the area of expertise of the editor (s), such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.
● Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly concerning the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the results support the conclusions. Editorial decisions should be based on peer-reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer-reviewer reports that do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
● Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. At least one reviewer should review each manuscript the author did not suggest.
● Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries, or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the editor (s); if the topic is not in the area of expertise of the editor (s), such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.
On rare, exceptional occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the editor may act as a second reviewer or decide to use only one report.
● Editor must have a sufficient amount of knowledge in the area if acting as a second reviewer
● Editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process
● Any single reports should be detailed and thorough
● The first reviewer should be senior, on topic, and have published recently on the subject
● Editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process
● Any single reports should be detailed and thorough
● The first reviewer should be senior, on topic, and have published recently on the subject
Potential peer reviewers should inform the editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.
Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors can suggest peer reviewers in the cover letter. Information that will help the editor verify the identity and expertise of the reviewer will be required. This includes the suggested reviewer’s institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.
View: 673 Time(s) | Print: 65 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
