Make sure the article you have been asked to review truly matches your expertise

The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.

Avoid a potential conflict of interest

The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.

Understand what it means to accept to review and manage deadlines

Deadlines for reviews vary per journal. The editors will provide information on deadline expectations with the review request. Let them know within a day or two that you got the request. They will appreciate being informed in a timely manner if you are able to complete the review or not. There are no consequences for refusing to review a paper.
If you feel the review will take you longer to complete than normal, please contact the editor to discuss the matter. The editor may ask you to recommend an alternate reviewer, or may be willing to wait a little longer (e.g., if the paper is highly specialized and reviewers are difficult to find). As a general guideline, if you know you will not be able to complete a review within the time frame requested, you should decline to review the paper.

Ethics

Plagiarism

If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.

Fraud

It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.

Other ethical concerns

For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor. Visit our website on Ethics Guideline for more information.

Confidentiality

Do not disclose to others

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Requesting the opinion of a single colleague may be appropriate in some circumstances but you should always let the editor know beforehand. Most editors welcome additional comments, but whoever else is involved will also need to keep the review process confidential. If the review is referred to a student, he or she should communicate directly with the editor.

Reviewer identity is generally not shared with the author

Although journal practices vary, most journals do not share the identity of the reviewer with the author. To help us protect your identity, please do not reveal your name within the text of your review. It also implies you should not attempt to contact the author.

Originality

Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.

Structure

Layout and format

Authors are required to adhere to the journal’s Guide for Authors, which includes manuscript presentation. If the difference is extreme and the editor has not mentioned this issue in the request to review, you may wish to contact your editor to discuss it. Otherwise, you should note this in your review. If the paper is otherwise good, the editor may choose to overlook the formatting issues (for example, if the author comes from outside the discipline but has something valuable to convey to the readers of this journal). Other times, editors may ask the author to restructure the paper before publication.

Title. Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract. Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction. Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.

Method. Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results. This is where the author(s) should explain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Discussion/Conclusion. Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Language. If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor.

Previous Research

If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. Below are some key points to consider during this task.

Process

Precise instructions on how to format your review will be provided to you by your editor via online submission system.

Accessibility of reviewers comments

An author will only see the comments you have made that are specific to the author; sometimes the editor will edit them.
Other reviewers' comments can been seen via online submission system, although not all editors have opted to have this feature activated for their journal. If your journal has not activated this feature, you may contact the editor if you wish to have feedback on your review or on whether the paper was accepted or rejected.

Provide a quick summary

Some journals may request that you complete a form, checking various aspects of the paper, others will request an overview of your remarks. Either way, it is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the beginning of your report. This serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you have understood the article.

Highlight key elements

The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

Explain your judgement

The report should coProviding insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

Classify your recommendation

When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:

• - Reject (explain reason in report)
• - Accept without revision
• - Revise (either major or minor)

Identify the required revision

Clearly explain the kind of revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.

Acceptance/Rejection

The final decision of whether to accept or reject a particular manuscript lies with the editor, or Editor-in-Chief. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.
Online submission system allows reviewers to be notified of the outcome of papers they have reviewed. It is left to the editor’s discretion of whether this function is activated for any given journal. If this functionality is not activated for your journal, you may contact the editor if you wish to know whether the paper was accepted or rejected.