Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Reviewing

Contributing to formal scholarly engagement, reviewers play a crucial role in the editorial decision-making process. This responsibility not only aids the Editor but also facilitates authors in refining their manuscripts. The ethical responsibility of reviewers is paramount, influencing the quality, credibility, and reputation of a journal. To ensure standardized services, the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan, presents 'Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers.'

  1. Suitability and Promptness:

Reviewers should:

  • Inform the Editor if lacking subject expertise.
  • Act promptly and submit reviews on time.
  • Communicate delays promptly and propose an alternative submission date.
  • Avoid unnecessary delays in the review process.
  1. Standards of Objectivity:

Reviews should:

  • Be carried out objectively with high academic standards.
  • Maintain meticulous judgments for full comprehension by editors and authors.
  • Avoid unsupported assertions from both reviewers and authors.
  • Focus on critiquing the manuscript rather than resorting to personal criticism.
  1. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

Reviewers should:

  • Not use unpublished material for personal research without approval.
  • Declare any conflicting interests following the journal's policies.
  • Declare conflicts of interest if reviewing a paper similar to their ongoing study.
  • Immediately return a manuscript if unable to separate bias.
  1. Confidentiality:

Reviewers should:

  • Treat the research paper as confidential.
  • Discuss its content only with authorized professional advice.
  • Not disclose details prior to publication without Editor approval.
  1. Ethical Considerations:

Reviewers should:

  • Ethically inform the Editor if suspecting similarity to other work.
  • Share concerns about unrealistic or fake results with the Editor.
  • Identify ethical violations in the treatment of participants.
  1. Originality:

Reviewers should assess:

  • Whether the research paper contributes to existing knowledge.
  • If research questions align with the research work's objective.
  1. Structure:

Reviewers should evaluate:

  • The layout and format according to prescribed versions.
  • Language quality, especially if it may hinder comprehension.
  • Originality of data.
  • Clarity of illustrations and appropriateness of statistical analysis.
  • Adherence to journal guidelines, freedom from typographical errors, and appropriateness of format.
  1. Review Report:

Reviewers should:

  • Explicitly write observations in the 'comments' section.
  • Complete prescribed review forms.
  • Provide a brief summary with final decision and inferences.
  • Avoid personal comments, writing final remarks positively.
  • Highlight deficiencies in detail to justify comments.
  • Clearly indicate decisions as 'Reject,' 'Accept without revision,' or 'Need Revision.'
  • Indicate revisions comprehensively and confirm them if required by the Editor.
  1. Final Decision:
  • The Editor holds the sole right to decide to publish or reject a paper.
  • Reviewer comments guide the decision but do not determine it.
  • The Editor may seek additional opinions or request revisions before the final decision.