Summary
Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, PPAM' Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. PPAM adheres to a single-blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, PPAM needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts within 15 days after the time they accepted to review. Maintaining PPAM as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. The PPAM peer review process is based on the ethical guidelines of COPE for peer reviewers. For information on this matter in peer review and ethical guidelines please read below:
Professional responsibility
When asked to review, agree to review only if you have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in your assessment. Potential reviewers should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information.
Conflict of Interest
Any invited reviewer who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript, should immediately declare, so that alternative reviewers can be invited. For example, If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (eg, within the past 3 years), you should not agree to review.
Timeliness
It is courteous to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time frame, even if you cannot undertake the review. You should agree to review only if you are able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame. Always inform the journal promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfil your original agreement or if you require an extension.
Confidentiality
Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the journal.
Fair Reviews
It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations.. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify the journal and seek advice
Suspicion of ethics violations
If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics do let the journal know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article.
Transferability of peer review
Publishers may have policies related to transferring peer reviews to other journals in the publisher’s portfolio. Reviewers may be asked to give permission for the transfer of their reviews if that is journal policy. If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes.
PREPARING A REPORT
Format
Follow the journal website's default for writing and submitting comments.
Appropriate feedback
Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see.
Language and style
Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically. In addition, be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.
Suggestions for further work
The reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration.
Accountability
Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission from the journal to involve another person. Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.
If you are the editor handling a manuscript and decide to provide a review of that manuscript yourself (perhaps if another reviewer could not return a report), do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous additional reviewer.
WHAT TO CONSIDER AFTER PEER REVIEW
If possible, try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts you have reviewed previously. It is helpful to respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to your review and to provide the information required. Similarly, contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after you have submitted your review that might affect your original feedback and recommendations. Continue to respect the confidential nature of the review process and do not reveal details of the manuscript after peer review unless you have permission from the author and the journal.