Reviewing plays an important role in providing objectivity for research and veracity of informing about them. Reviewers take the most important place in this process and, therefore, should be committed to the general principles and standards, undertaking proper obligations.
Therefore, reviewers must:
● agree to make an expert report on the materials that they can estimate due to their level of knowledge and can review in reasonable time;
● comply with confidentiality requirements and not reveal details of reviewed works before, during or after reviewing the article to third parties except for the people, allowed by the editorial board;
● not use the information received for personal ends or for the convenience of other people, organizations, harming other people or discrediting them;
● perform reviewing conscientiously, objectively and impartially in order to improve the quality of work;
● provide the journal with objective information on their personal and professional knowledge and experience;
● take into consideration that nationality, religion, political or other views of authors and commercial matters must not affect the contents of a review;
● provide a conclusion on advisability of publishing an article in timescales agreed with the scientific editor.
During the preparation for reviewing, they should:
● quickly react to offers of making a review, maintain the specified time-limits, inform the executive editor in time if deadline extension is needed;
● if the level of qualification is insufficient, notify the executive editor; decline the offer if due to different reasons the objective estimation of an article is impossible;
● withdraw from reviewing an article if the reviewer has taken some part in preparation of the work or is mentioned in it;
● follow the policy of the journal in cases that can prevent from giving objective estimation to an article;
● inform about all possible conflicts of objectives.
While reviewing, they ought to:
● point out what additional research and studies can improve or expand the work or support its conclusions;
● take into consideration that recommendations on improving a study must be based on its scientific value;
● notify the editor if a conflict of objectives or conditions affecting the terms of reviewing can appear;
● address the executive editor if any problems appear or ask for additional information needed for a review of high quality;
● do not engage third parties in reviewing without the editor's consent;
● do not address authors directly without getting a permission from the editor in advance.
