JJC Information

Author Index

Reviewer Index

Editorial Index

     JJC » Reviewer Index » Ethical Guidelines

Reviewer's Index

Instructions to Reviewers
Ethical Guidelines  
Manuscript Review

Reviewer Expertise Form

Review Submission

Hardcopy Review Form
Online Review Submission


Ethical Guidelines to Reviewers

 Scientists elected to review a manuscript for publication by JJC should comply with the following ethical guidelines.

I.  A reviewer should promptly return the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief, without review, if he/she: 

1.    Feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in the manuscript.

2.    Knows that the manuscript is authored or co-authored by anyone with whom the reviewer has a professional or personal relationship, especially since that relationship may bias an otherwise objective judgment of the manuscript.

3.    Suspects a potential conflict of interest arising from the fact that manuscript under review is closely related to published reviewer’s work or work in progress. However, if the reviewer wishes to submit a signed review which clearly states his/her interest in the research work of the manuscript, it should be understood that the review may, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, be transmitted to the author.

4.    Feels that currently prevailing circumstances of his work precludes a prompt and timely review of the manuscript (e.g., within 3 to 4 weeks of his/her receipt of the manuscript). 

II. In reviewing a manuscript, a reviewer should:

 1.    Objectively judge the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work involved, and the interpretations and exposition provided, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards.

2.    Respect the intellectual independence of the manuscript authors. In case the manuscript justifies severe criticism by the reviewer, it should be delivered through published articles, when appropriate. Nevertheless, personal criticism of the author by the reviewer is in no way considered inappropriate.

3.    Exercise absolute confidentiality of the manuscript under review, which should neither be discussed with nor exposed to others. In cases where other scientists were consulted by the reviewer for a specific advice bearing on an enlightened judgment of a given aspect of the manuscript, the names of those consulted should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief.

4.    Indicate author’s failure to cite relevant works by other scientists, and draw the attention of the Editor-in-Chief to any significant similarity of the manuscript to any published paper or manuscript that is being concurrently submitted to another Journal.

5.    Adequately explain and support the judgment provided such that editors and authors would clearly understand the scientific basis of their comments. Any comment stating that a given observation, derivation, or argument had been reported earlier should be properly cited by the reviewer, who should avoid making assertions that are not clearly supported.

6.    Act promptly to submit a timely review of the manuscript (e.g., within 3 to 4 weeks of his/her receipt of the manuscript). The reviewer may however inform the Editor-in-Chief of probable delays proposing a reasonably projected date for review.

7.    Not disclose or use any information, observations, derivations, arguments, or interpretations provided by the manuscript under review, without an explicit consent of the author.