Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0 - (Page 6)

Reviewers’ Information Pack Supporting Peer-Review 3. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS 3.1. Contributions to Editorial Decisions As a reviewer you will assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peerreview is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to review. 3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources As a reviewer you should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. You should also call the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which you have personal knowledge. 3.2. Promptness If you feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or know that its prompt review will be impossible you should notify the editor and excuse yourself from the review process. 3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper must not be used in your own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peerreview must be kept confidential and not used for your personal advantage. You should not review any papers in which you have conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. 3.3. Confidentiality You must treat as confidential, any documents and papers received for review. They must not be shown to, or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. 3.4. Standards of Objectivity You should conduct reviews objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. You should express your views clearly with supporting arguments. 6 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