To acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts within a few
days of receipt and to ensure the efficient, fair and timely review process of
To ensure that submitted manuscripts are handled in a
confidential manner, with no details being disclosed to anyone, with the
exception of the referees, without the permission of the author, until a
decision has been taken as to whether the manuscript is to be published.
To invite reviewers, probably considering the use of an
author's suggested referees for his/her submitted article, but to ensure that
the suggestions do not lead to a positive bias (e.g. co-authors of previous
publications, mentor). The editor maintains the right to use referees of
his/her own choice.
Not to use referees which an author has requested not to be
consulted, unless the editor reasonably considers there to be a significant
overriding interest in so doing.
To ensure the confidentiality of the names and other details
of referees; adjudication and appeal referees may be informed of the names of
prior referees, if appropriate.
To make the final decision concerning acceptance or
rejection of a manuscript with reasonable speed and to communicate the decision
in a clear and constructive manner.
To decide to accept or reject a manuscript for publication
with reference only to the manuscript’s importance, originality and clarity,
and its relevance to the journal.
To respect the intellectual independence of authors.
To make known any conflicts of interest that might arise.
Specifically, in cases where an editor is an author of a submitted manuscript,
the manuscript must be passed to another editor for independent peer review.
Not to use for their own research, work reported in
unpublished submitted articles.
To respond to any suggestions of scientific misconduct,
usually through consultation with the author. This may require the publication
of a formal ‘retraction' or correction.
To deal fairly with an author’s appeal against the rejection
of a submitted manuscript.
To monitor and ensure the fairness, timeliness, and
thoroughness of the peer review process.
Reviewers have the following responsibilities:
To provide written, unbiased, and informative feedback in a
timely manner on the scientific value of the work, rating the work’s
composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
To treat the manuscript as confidential; not sharing,
discussing with third parties, or disclosing the information in the reviewed
To return/destroy/erase the manuscript and to inform the
editor should they be unqualified to review the manuscript, or lack the time to
review the manuscript, without undue delay.
To judge the manuscript objectively and in a timely manner.
Referees should not make personal criticism in their reviews.
To return the manuscript without review to the editor if
there is a conflict of interest. Specifically, Referees should not review manuscripts authored
or co-authored by a person with whom the referee has a close personal or
professional relationship, if this relationship could be reasonably thought to
bias the review.
To explain and support their judgments so that editors and
authors may understand the basis of their comments, and to provide reference to
published work, where appropriate.
To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted
manuscript and another either published or under consideration by another
journal to the best of their knowledge.
To ensure that all unpublished data, information,
interpretation and discussion in a submitted article remain confidential and
not to use reported work in unpublished, submitted articles for their own
To alert the editor if a manuscript contains plagiarized
material or falsified data to the best of their knowledge.