- Reviewers should assist in improving the quality of a submitted article by reviewing the manuscript with care, consideration and objectivity, in a timely manner.
- Reviewers should inform the journal editor of any published or submitted content that is similar to the material under review, or any suspected plagiarism.
- Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest relating to a specific article or author.
- Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of any information or material supplied during the review process.
- Providing a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the work.
- Indicating whether the writing is relevant, concise & clear and evaluating the originality and scientific accuracy.
- Maintaining the confidentiality of the complete review process.
- Notifying the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists.
- Notifying the journal editor of any ethical concerns in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or any considerable similarity between the previously published article and any reviewed manuscript.
(These Guidelines Are Based On Existing Elsevier Policies And COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines For Journal Editors.)
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Ijhmr shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.