Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities

Reviewers are vital to a high quality manuscript evaluation process, and serve an indispensable role in preserving the integrity of the scientific record. Effective reviewing requires the investment of time and a certain skill set. Before you decide to accept a request to review, we recommend that you become familiar with the peer review process and how to conduct a review.

What do reviewers do?

Reviewers evaluate article submissions to journals and advise editors as to the articles' suitability for publication. This combines thorough technical review of the quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented, with a broader perspective on the potential interest the results may or may not hold for the journal's readership, depending on the journal's criteria for publication.

Good reviewers collaborate with authors to improve their work. They provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements, and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the editor, but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome.

Reviewing is a time-intensive process, but it is worthwhile for the reviewer as well as for the community.

Primary Role

ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.
uphold the integrity of the scientific record by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the academic literature.
fulfil a sense of obligation to the community and their own area of research.
establish relationships with reputable colleagues, and participate in the global social network of their field.
build a reputation with editors and their affiliated journals, with the potential to serve as editors.
can help prevent ethical breaches by identifying potential plagiarism, research misconduct, and other problems through their familiarity with the subject area.
reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as reviewer, researchers "repay" the same consideration they receive as authors.

Reviewing requires the investment of time and a certain skill set. Before you decide to accept a request to review, you might want to know more about the peer review process and how to conduct a review.

Reviewers evaluate article submissions to journals based on the requirements of that journal, predefined criteria, and the quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented. They provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the journal’s editor but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

JHRS undertakes a very serious double-blind peer-review process and carefully selects reviewers for submitted manuscripts from among the top scholars in the field. Reviewers must fulfil the following criteria:

Be a recognized expert in the field;
Hold a PhD degree;
Not be a co-author in the manuscript submitted for intended publication in JHRS;
Not be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s);

If, for any reason, a reviewer is unable to review the manuscripts after accepting the invitation or suspects a potential conflict of interests, he/she should inform the Editor-in-chief immediately.

Reviewers will be formally asked to review the assigned manuscripts by the Editor-in-chief and shall submit their review reports within 2 weeks of the submission deadline.

Reviewers will submit their review reports which will be compiled and sent to the Editor-in-chief.

Reviewer responsibilities toward authors

Providing written, unbiased, constructive feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion
Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers
Avoiding personal comments or criticism
Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper

Reviewer responsibilities toward editors

Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and, if able, providing the names of alternative reviewers
Alerting the editor about any potential personal, financial or perceived conflict of interest and declining to review when a conflict exists
Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review
Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author
Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and, if requested, recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful
Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal that may be known to the reviewer
Refraining from direct author contact

Reviewer responsibilities toward readers

Ensuring that the methods and analysis are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study.
Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other scientists.

Reviewer Selection

Editors, frequently with the assistance of electronic databases of reviewers kept by their journal’s offices, choose reviewers whose expertise most closely matches the manuscript’s topic and invite them to review the paper. The editors also consider the number of manuscripts sent to a reviewer by their journal so as not to overburden any one expert. Editors are encouraged to consider a diversity when selecting from a pool of potential reviewers. Some journals encourage authors to suggest preferred reviewers and reviewers they would prefer to be excluded. Ideally, the reviewer selection process and the journal’s internal policies address the issue of potential bias by excluding reviewers from the same department or institution as that of the author(s) and by asking reviewers to disclose any potential conflict of interest. Reviewers may also be asked to decline the review if they have any personal or professional connection to the author(s) that may be perceived as a conflict of interest, they feel unqualified to do the review, or they cannot review in a timely manner. This “bias screening” at the point of reviewer selection may be incorporated into the forms in an online submission system, the email sent to request the review, or posted on the journal site as a policy.