It is easy to criticize the author, but it is difficult to assess him
(Luc de Clapier Vauvenargue)
FOR THE PEER-REVIEWER
1. Consent or refusal from reviewing
You can accept or reject the proposal for peer-review. Reviewing the articles of the Journal of Health Development (hereinafter – the Journal) is a gratuitous process. By agreeing to review, you will contribute to the work of the Journal. If you refuse to review, there are no consequences for the reviewer.
2. Compliance of an article to the experience and knowledge of a reviewer submitted for reviewing
When you receive a request for a specific article, agree to a review only if you are competent enough to review this article.
3. Issues of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Information on the conflict of interest should be indicated in the response to the editor's suggestion. The openness of the reviewer in this matter will help the editor to make a proper decision. The fact that there is a conflict of interest does not always entail a ban on reviewing the article.
Examples of conflict of interest: the reviewer and the author work in the same division of the same organization; if the reviewer previously collaborated with the author on the manuscript; personal, professional or financial interest of the reviewer.
4. Timeframe for the peer-review
The request for peer-review will indicate the date to which it is necessary to give an opinion on a particular article. The editorial office of the Journal asks you to inform them within two days about your decision on acceptance of the article for peer-review. If you do not have time to give a peer-review of the article on the terms, inform the editor about it. The Editorial Board may ask you to recommend another specialist for the profile of the article or send a request for an extension of the review period.
The Editorial Board of the Journal maintains a high level of peer-review (double "blind" review), which provides protection for the reviewer's personal data. We ask you not to identify yourself by indicating your name in the text of the review or in the title of the file with a review.
6. Review Process
You can evaluate by filling in a special extended form. This form differs depending on the type of scientific article (review article, original article, case description or short message), includes questions for each section and will automatically be attached to the peer-reviewed material. After filling out this form, you should create a separate file with the actual text of the peer-review. The comment should be clear, constructive and polite. When pointing out a certain drawback of the manuscript, you should be able to state your point of view.
If you suspect a plagiarism, you should inform the editor about it.
In the process of reviewing you have the opportunity to send individual comments to the editor, that will not be available to authors.
At the end of the review process, you need to classify your recommendations for an article:
- acceptance without correction;
-requires minor corrections;
-requires significant corrections;
-refusal (with an explanation of the reason for the refusal).