Reviewer's Guidelines

Ethical consideration for peer reviewers

Review of the manuscript by reviewers is not only an essential component of formal scholarly engagement, but is also a fundamental step in the publication process as it aids Editor in the editorial decision making.    It    also    allows    author(s)    improve    their    manuscript     through     editorial communications.    Scholars    accepting    to    review    a    research    paper    have    an    ethical responsibility to   complete   this   assignment   professionally.   The   quality,   credibility   and   reputation of a journal also depend on the peer review process. The peer review process depends on the trust, and demands that a reviewer is supposed to fulfill ethically. These professionals are the momentum arm of the review process, but they may be performing this job without any formal training. As a consequence, they may be (especially young professionals) unaware of their ethical obligations. The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan wants to list down 'Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers' so that all reviewers provide their valuable services in a standardized manner.

 Suitability and Promptness

 The Reviewers should:

• Inform the  Editor,  if  they   do  not  have  the  subject  expertise  required   to   carry  out   the review and s/he should inform the Editor immediately after receiving a
• Be responsible to act promptly and submit review report on
• Immediately inform the Editor of any  possible  delays  and  suggest  another  date  of submission for a review report, and
• Not unnecessarily  delay   the   review   process,   either   by   prolonged   delay   in   submission of their   review   or   by requesting   unnecessary additional   data/information   from  the   Editor or author(s).

 Standards of Objectivity

• The reviews  should  be  objectively  carried  out  with  a  consideration  of  high  academic, scholarly and scientific
• All judgments  should  be  meticulously  established  and  maintained  in  order  to   ensure  the full comprehension of the reviewer's comments by the editors and the author(s).
• Both reviewers and author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported assertions,
• The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be inappropriate to resort to personal criticism on the author(s), and
• The reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely based  on  the  quality  of  the  research paper  and  not  influenced,  either  positively  or   negatively,   by   any   personal,   financial,   or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual bias.

 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

• A reviewer should not, for the purpose of his/her own research, use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the approval of the
• The data       included       in       the       research       paper        is       confidential          and       the reviewer shall not be allowed to use if for his/her personal study,
• A reviewer must declare any potentially conflicting interests  (e.g.  personal,  financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious). In such situation, s/he  will  be  required  to follow the journal's
• A reviewer should be honest enough to declare conflicts of interest, if, the research paper under review is the same as to his/her presently conducted
• If  the   reviewer   feels   unqualified   to   separate   his/her  bias,   s/he   should   immediately   return the manuscript to the Editor without review, and justify to him/her about the

Confidentiality

• Reviewers should consider the  research  paper  as  a  confidential  document  and must  not  discuss its  content  on  any  platform  except   in   cases   where   professional   advice   is   being   sought with the authorization of the Editor, and
• Reviewers  are   professionally   and   ethically   bound   not   to   disclose   the   details   of   any research paper prior to its publication without the prior approval of the

Ethical Consideration

• If the reviewer suspects that the research paper is almost the same as someone else's work, s/he will ethically inform the Editor and provide its citation as a
• If the reviewer suspects that results in the research paper to be untrue/unrealistic/fake, s/he will share it with the Editor,
• If there has been an indication of violating ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, female, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc), then this should be identified to the Editor, and
• If the research paper is based on any previous research study or is replica of an earlier work, or the work is plagiarized for g. the author has not acknowledged/referenced others' work appropriately, then this should be brought in the Editor's knowledge.

Originality 

For evaluating originality, the reviewers should consider the following elements: 

• Does the research paper add to existing knowledge?
• Are the research questions and/or hypotheses in line with the objective of the research work?

 Structure

 If the layout and format of the paper is not according to the prescribed version, the reviewers should discuss it with the Editor or should include this observation in their review report. On the other hand, if the research paper is exceptionally well written, the reviewer may overlook the formatting issues. At other times, the reviewers may suggest restructuring the paper before publication. The following elements should be carefully evaluated: 

• If there is serious problem of language or expression and the reviewer gets the impression that the research paper does not fulfill linguistic requirements and readers would face difficulties reading and comprehending the The reviewer should record this deficiency in his/her report and suggest the editor to make its proper editing. Such a situation may arise when the author(s)’ native language is not English.
• Whether the data presented in the paper is original or reproduced from previously conducted or published the papers which reflect originality should be given preference for publication.
• The clarity of illustrations including photographs, models, charts, images and figures is essential to If there is duplication then it should be reported in the review report. Similarly, descriptions provided in the “Results” section should correspond with the data presented in tables/figures, if not then it should be clearly listed in the review report.
• Critically review the statistical analysis of the Also check the rational and appropriateness of the specific analysis.
• The reviewers should read the “Methodology” section in detail and make sure that the author(s) has demonstrated the understanding of the procedures being used and presented in the
• The relationship between “Data, Findings and Discussion” requires a thorough evaluation unnecessary conjecture or unfounded conclusions that are not based on the presented data are not acceptable.
• Further questions to be addressed are whether: the organization of the research paper is appropriate or deviates from the standard or prescribed format?
• Does the author(s) follow the guidelines prescribed by the journal for preparation and submission of the manuscript?
• Is the research paper free from typographical errors?

 Review Report 

• The reviewer must explicitly write his/her observations in the section of 'comments' because author(s) will only have access to the comments reviewers have made, 

• For writing a review report, the reviewers are requested to complete a prescribed form (s). 

• It is helpful for both the Editor and author(s) if the reviewer writes a brief summary in the first section of the review This summary should comprise the reviewer's final decision and inferences drawn from a full review.
• Any personal comments on author(s) should be avoided and final remarks should be written in a courteous and positive manner,
• Indicating any deficiencies is For the understanding of the Editor and author(s), the reviewers should highlight these deficiencies in some detail with specificity. This should help justify the comments made by the reviewer,
• When a reviewer makes a decision regarding the research paper, it should be clearly indicated as 'Reject', 'Accept without revision', or 'Need Revision' and either of the decisions should have 

• The reviewers should indicate the revisions clearly and comprehensively, and show willingness to confirm the revisions submitted by the author(s), if Editor wishes so, and
• The final decision about publishing  a  research  paper  (either  accept  or  reject)  will  solely rest with the Editor and  it  is  not  a  reviewer's  job  to  take  part  in  this    The  editor will surely consider reviewer's comments and have a right to send  the  paper  for  another opinion or send it back to the author(s) for revision before making the final decision.