Page 5 - Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

t not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is
mentioned in the manuscript.

t ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with their report for the
authors; most feedback should be put in the report for the authors.

t confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in
the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.

t not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to
increase the reviewer’s (or their associates’) citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their
associates’ work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.

t determine whether the journal allows them to sign their reviews and, if it does, decide as they feel
comfortable doing.

t if they are the editor handling a manuscript and decide themselves to provide a review of that
manuscript, do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous review if the journal
operates blind review; providing a review for a manuscript being handled by another editor at the
journal can be treated as any other review.

Expectations post review

Peer reviewers should:

t continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.

t respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and
provide the information required.

t contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might
affect their original feedback and recommendations.

t read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own
understanding of the topic or the decision reached.

t try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they
have reviewed.

WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG