Ethical guidelines for reviewers

The RBC follows the recommendations of the “Committee on Publication Ethics” for ethical editing and publication of scientific articles. Codes of conduct and guidelines for editors and reviewers are available at Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Provide guidance to all external reviewers invited to critique articles for publication by RBC, make sure they read these guidelines. It is expected they review manuscripts within the agreed timeline about which they have the necessary expertise. Typically, reviewers have access to unpublished information and ideas and should use them wisely for the intended purpose. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality and refrain from discussing the manuscript or their review – further to those published by the journal – during or after the review. Plagiarism is considered misconduct and the information acquired during the review cannot be used to further their own, third parties or organizations advantages or to disadvantage or discredit others. Like the authors, reviewers must disclose their potential competing interests and seek the Journal’s advice on potential doubts about it. If there are potential conflicts that could bias their opinions on the manuscript, they should recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript. Reviewers must ensure their reviews are not biased by the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religion, politics, gender or other characteristics of the author or even commercial considerations. Contact the editor, should any suspicion of similarity between the manuscript and any published article or earlier submitted to another journal exists. Be objective and constructive in your review, and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory comments.

Recommendations for reviewers

Professional and thorough peer-reviews ensure the integrity and quality of scholar publications. The success of the editorial process reflects the confidence among the parties involved, therefore it is paramount that ethical and accountable conducts guide their actions. The editorial process hinges on peer-review.

These instructions were based in the guidelines of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and COPE and summarized as follows:

Reviewers should be experts in the manuscript’s content area and that they will be able to provide relevant and cohesive review.
Either a member of the Editorial Board or Ad Hoc panel, they should value quality in their job and issue at least three reviews annually.
Confidentiality should guide the review during or after the evaluation process, refraining to disclose details about the yet unpublished article.
It is considered misconduct the use of information acquired during the review to further its own or third parties and organization’s interests and to disadvantage or discredit anyone.
The reviewer may opt to keep the double-anonymous review modality or disclose its identity to the authors.
If for any reason the reviewer recognizes the manuscript authorship, the editors should be informed to ensure the validity of the double-anonymous process and to avoid potential conflict of interests regardless of the modality chosen.
The scientific editor should be consulted about emerging doubts on the relevance of certain conflict(s). While accepting to review the manuscripts, the reviewers concur and adhere to the agreed timeline to complete and deliver their review. Meeting the agreed timeline is ethical, respectful and accountable.
Indicate corrigible errors and alternatives to amend them. Reviewers must honestly evaluate the cost-benefit of each modification suggested for the actual improvement of the manuscript quality. If scientifically justifiable, the reviewer should point out current (last five years) or relevant references for the manuscript and/or its potential correction.
Avoid prolonging the editorial process with additional recommendations, try to suggest all the modifications in the first review.
Reviewers are expected to indicate incorrigible errors of the manuscript as limitations in the appropriate section or recommend its evidence-based rejection for publication. The review should be objective and constructive refraining from being hostile or inflammatory with derogatory or defamatory personal comments.