Peer Review Ethics of Scientific Papers

Peer Review Ethics of Scientific Papers


  • Prof. Dr. Syed Muhammad Awais



Evaluation of the scientific paper by the experts of the scientific topic addressed in the article is known as peer review. Peer review is fundamental to the scien-tific publication process and the quality of publication. The type of review process is generally based on the number of reviewers, authors and institutions blinded to the reviewer identity or not. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by editors to provide written assess-ment of the strengths and weaknesses of written resea-rch, with the aim of improving the reporting of rese-arch by identifying the highest quality material for the journal. The peer reviewers selected for the journal are required to meet minimum standards. The reviewers must have background in original research, publication of articles, formal training, and experience of perfor-ming critical appraisal of manuscripts.

      Reviewers will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. While re-viewing the manuscripts, the reviewers are desired to observe following elements.

1.      Identify and comment accurately and constructi-vely on major strengths and weaknesses of study design, methodology, results and interpretation of the data.

2.      Comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any evidence of low standards.

3.      Provide constructive and professional suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.

4.      Write recommendation to editor to make a deci-sion on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manu-script.

5.      Treat manuscript as confidential and not retain or copy it. Also, reviewers must not share the manu-script with any colleagues.

6.      If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should noti-fy the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal.

      The editors should make an effort to educate revie-wers on how to peer review. The editors should routi-nely assess all reviews for review quality and other performance characteristics of the reviewers. Indivi-dual performance data must be kept confidential.

      Editors, if possible, after the professional peer review should strongly consider having a statistician review report of original research that is being con-sidered for publication.


How to Cite

Awais, P. D. S. M. (2014). Peer Review Ethics of Scientific Papers. Annals of King Edward Medical University, 19(1), 1.