Reviewer's Responsibilities

Reviewing is a quiet yet powerful act of service. Reviewers safeguard the reliability of published science, protect the trust of readers, and support authors in refining their contributions. This responsibility is not only technical but also ethical: it is a commitment to fairness, humility, and respect. The following outlines the responsibilities that reviewers carry when they accept this role.

1. Fair and Impartial Evaluation

Reviewers must assess manuscripts based solely on academic quality, originality, and relevance. Personal biases regarding nationality, institution, gender, or background must never influence judgment. To review is to stand as a neutral voice for the integrity of science.

2. Respect for Confidentiality

Manuscripts are entrusted to reviewers in confidence. Content may not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage. Respect for confidentiality is not optional; it is a foundational duty that preserves trust in the peer review process.

3. Constructive Feedback

Critique should be specific, evidence-based, and aimed at improvement. Reviewers should highlight strengths as well as weaknesses, guiding authors toward clarity and precision. Tone matters: even when recommending rejection, feedback should remain professional and respectful, never dismissive.

4. Timeliness

Reviews should be completed within the timeframe requested, usually 2–4 weeks. Delays hinder authors and slow scientific communication. If unforeseen circumstances arise, reviewers should notify the editorial office promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.

5. Awareness of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, whether financial, professional, or personal. If such conflicts prevent impartial judgment, reviewers should decline the invitation. Honesty in this area protects both the reviewer’s integrity and the fairness of the process.

6. Vigilance Against Misconduct

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical practices, they should inform the editor discreetly. It is not the reviewer’s role to conduct investigations, but raising concerns is part of their duty to safeguard the scholarly record.

7. Respect for Intellectual Property

Ideas, methods, or data encountered during review must not be used in the reviewer’s own research or shared with others. Protecting the intellectual property of authors preserves trust in the peer review system and honors the effort behind each submission.

8. Professional Communication

Reviewer comments should be written with clarity and professionalism. Feedback that is dismissive, sarcastic, or disrespectful diminishes the value of the review. Thoughtful language elevates the process, fostering a spirit of collaboration rather than criticism alone.

9. Continuous Growth

Reviewing is also an opportunity for personal development. By engaging critically with diverse manuscripts, reviewers expand their knowledge and sharpen their analytical skills. Embracing this growth mindset ensures that reviewers remain both effective and humble in their role.

Conclusion

Reviewer’s responsibilities are not mechanical tasks—they are values in action. By evaluating fairly, maintaining confidentiality, offering constructive feedback, respecting deadlines, and guarding against misconduct, reviewers affirm their role as guardians of trust. Their quiet contributions sustain the vitality and credibility of science, making them indispensable partners in the journey of discovery.