Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0 - (Page 16)

Reviewers’ Information Pack Supporting Peer-Review 7. A BRIEF GUIDE TO REVIEWING 7.3. Conducting the Review (continued) Ethical Issues • Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible. • Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor. • Other ethical concerns: If the research is medical in nature, has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified. When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories an editor will likely use for classifying the article: a) Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope b) Accept without revision c) Accept but needs revision (either major or minor) In the latter case, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article. 7.4. Communicating your Report to the Editor Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. If it looks like you might miss your deadline, let the editor know. Some journals may request that you complete a form checking various points, others will request an overview of your remarks. Either way, it is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the top of your report. It serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you understood the article. The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data. 16 www.elsevier.com/reviewers  http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0

Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
Table of Contents
1. About Elsevier
1.1. A Short History of Elsevier
2. About Peer-Review
2.1. What Is Peer-Review?
2.2. Who Are Reviewers?
2.3. Why Reviewers Review?
2.4. Peer-Review Process
2.5. Types of Peer-Review
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
3.2. Promptness
3.3. Confidentiality
3.4. Standards of Objectivity
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.7. Adherence to Elsevier Publishing Ethics
4. Peer-Review System
4.1. Elsevier Editorial System (EES)
4.2. Tools to Help
5. Supporting Our Reviewers
5.1. Online Support
5.2. Training
6. Listening to Our Reviewers
6.1. Reviewer Feedback Programme
6.2. Reviewers’ Home
6.3. Elsevier and Sense About Science Reviewer Survey
7. A Brief Guide to Reviewing
7.1. Purpose of Peer-Review
7.2. On Being Asked to Review
7.3. Conducting the Review
7.4. Communicating Your Report to the Editor

Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0

https://www.nxtbookmedia.com