:

It is an advantage to review a manuscript written by a fellow researcher. It can also be an exciting educational responsibility worth the time that the reviewer spends on it. Nova Biologica Reperta appreciates your willingness to accept this responsibility. Reviewers are granted certificates for their contribution.
The submitted manuscripts are passed on to reviewers by the decision of the editorial board. If you are invited as the reviewer of a paper you are expected to immediately read the editor's transmittal e-mail, which includes the abstract of the article to determine whether the subject is within your area of expert knowledge and whether you are willing to complete the review in the determined time limitation. Click the link in the e-mail or directly log on to NBR and either accept or decline the invitation to review.

In case you decline, we will be grateful if you let us know your justification. Moreover, it will be very kind of you to introduce a specialist whom you trust in the relevant field of expertise.

In case you accept our invitation, the whole manuscript will be handed over to you. Do not discuss the paper with its authors either during or after the review process. Details of a manuscript and its review must remain confidential, before, during and after publication. Confidential remarks directed to the editor should be entered in the referee form.
 

Publication Ethics for Journal Article Reviewers and their responsibilities

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.  In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.
 

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making appropriate editorial decisions and helps the author(s) to improve the manuscript through the editorial communications.  
Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interest prior to agreeing to review a manuscript.
Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation in a timely manner (within 3 weeks), informing the editor if this is not possible.
Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report.
 
  • Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential; any pieces of manuscript content should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer review process. Reviewers must not contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
 
  • Alertness to Ethical Issues
Reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor.
Reviewers should inform the journal editors about any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Reviewers should ensure that the research material and methods comply with acceptable ethical guidelines.
Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be construed as impugning any person's reputation.
 
  • Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests.

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for publication, and should judge each on its merits (i.e. the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope).
Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).
 


View: 991 Time(s)   |   Print: 102 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)

© 2018 All Rights Reserved | Nova Biologica Reperta

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb
https://nbr.khu.ac.ir/page/24/Reviewers-Section
nbr.khu.ac.ir
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-43
25296
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:WYMEANH7XSC6BK3BC2QUYTNRRFVA4XTE
<urn:uuid:f0d77db4-8c22-4c5e-96b6-5a1a78745091>
2018-10-19T15:23:52Z
185.160.104.60
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:XHKLZJNWTVHHHDTFUHP6E6PO635YWTEZ
<urn:uuid:a3accc03-a2db-468c-b0e8-dedfeacbcfb5>
https://nbr.khu.ac.ir/page/24/Reviewers-Section
response
<urn:uuid:de2e5202-c862-45d9-83d2-aeab08f3ac21>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-102-130-252.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/