Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers are critical to the mission of Heighpubs Otolaryngology and Rhinology (HOR), ensuring quality, integrity, and fairness in scholarly publishing. These guidelines provide a framework for reviewers, based on COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ICMJE recommendations, and WAME principles.

Core Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.
  • Respect confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer anonymity.
  • Declare conflicts of interest before accepting review invitations.
  • Avoid using unpublished work for personal advantage.
  • Support editors in making fair, evidence-based decisions.

Review Process

  1. Invitation: Reviewers receive requests via email or OJS.
  2. Conflict Check: Disclose conflicts before accepting.
  3. Review Preparation: Evaluate manuscript content, methodology, ethics, and contribution.
  4. Feedback Submission: Provide detailed, structured comments via the journal platform.
  5. Decision Recommendation: Suggest acceptance, revision, or rejection, with rationale.

Ethical Principles

  • Respect author confidentiality and intellectual property.
  • Avoid derogatory or unprofessional language in reports.
  • Highlight ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).
  • Encourage transparency, reproducibility, and data availability.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and data must remain confidential before publication. Reviewers should not share, copy, or discuss manuscripts outside the review process.

Conflicts of Interest

  • Personal, financial, or professional relationships with authors or institutions must be disclosed.
  • Reviewers must decline invitations if conflicts could bias their judgment.

Timeliness

Reviews should be completed within the requested timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks). If unavailable, reviewers must decline promptly to allow reassignment.

Providing Constructive Feedback

  • Identify strengths and weaknesses in methodology, clarity, and originality.
  • Suggest improvements with specific, actionable recommendations.
  • Differentiate between major and minor revisions.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

  • HOR acknowledges reviewers through annual reviewer lists (with consent).
  • Certificates of appreciation and reviewer credits (Publons/ORCID integration) may be provided.

Sample Reviewer Report Structure

Section Reviewer Focus
Title/Abstract Clarity, relevance, alignment with study
Introduction Background, rationale, objectives
Methods Study design, ethics approval, reproducibility
Results Data integrity, clarity, statistical analysis
Discussion Interpretation, comparison with literature
Conclusion Validity, contribution, limitations
References Relevance, accuracy, currency

Example: If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, they should confidentially inform the editor rather than directly contacting the authors.

FAQs

Can reviewers suggest citations to their own work?

Yes, but only when relevant and not excessive.

How do reviewers decline reviews?

Respond promptly to invitations and suggest alternative reviewers if possible.

What if a reviewer realizes they lack expertise?

Inform the editor immediately so another qualified reviewer can be assigned.

How are reviewer contributions recognized?

Through annual acknowledgment lists, certificates, and optional ORCID integration.

Contact Information