Reviewer's Responsibilities

Peer reviewers are essential guardians of scholarly publishing at Heighpubs Otolaryngology and Rhinology (HOR). Their responsibilities extend beyond evaluating manuscripts—they help preserve research integrity, promote fairness, and strengthen the global academic record. These responsibilities are based on COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ICMJE recommendations, and WAME principles.

Core Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive feedback.
  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content.
  • Declare conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
  • Support editorial decisions by giving clear justifications for recommendations.

Evaluating Manuscripts

  • Assess originality, scientific rigor, and contribution to the field.
  • Verify that ethical standards for human and animal research are met.
  • Identify methodological flaws or unsupported claims.
  • Suggest improvements to clarity, structure, and readability.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content to third parties or use unpublished data for personal advantage. Confidentiality extends to manuscript discussions, reviewer identities, and editorial communications.

Constructive Feedback

  • Provide respectful, professional, and actionable comments.
  • Differentiate between essential and minor revisions.
  • Avoid unprofessional, personal, or disparaging remarks.

Conflicts of Interest

  • Declare any personal, financial, or professional conflicts with authors or topics.
  • Decline review invitations when conflicts impair objectivity.

Timeliness

Reviewers must adhere to deadlines (usually 2–3 weeks). If unable to complete on time, reviewers should notify editors promptly.

Ethical Vigilance

  • Alert editors to suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical concerns.
  • Respect the confidentiality of misconduct investigations.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

  • HOR acknowledges reviewer contributions annually (with consent).
  • Certificates of appreciation and ORCID/Publons credits may be provided.

Sample Reviewer Responsibilities Checklist

Area Responsibilities
Objectivity Evaluate research based on merit, not author identity
Confidentiality Do not disclose or misuse manuscript content
Timeliness Submit reviews within deadlines
Constructive Feedback Offer specific, respectful suggestions
Conflicts of Interest Declare or decline when conflicts exist
Ethical Vigilance Report plagiarism, misconduct, or ethical breaches

Example: If a reviewer recognizes a manuscript as similar to one they previously reviewed for another journal, they must alert the editor without breaching confidentiality.

FAQs

Can reviewers suggest citations to their own work?

Yes, but only if relevant and not self-serving.

What if reviewers suspect plagiarism?

They should confidentially notify the editor rather than contacting authors directly.

Can reviewers collaborate with colleagues on reviews?

No, reviews must be conducted individually unless prior editorial permission is granted.

What if reviewers cannot complete reviews?

They must decline promptly so another reviewer can be assigned.

Contact Information