Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers are essential partners in maintaining the quality and credibility of the Annals of Dermatological Research (ADR). These Reviewer Guidelines establish expectations, ethical obligations, and best practices for reviewers to ensure fairness, transparency, and integrity in the review process.

Reviewers must provide constructive, timely, and unbiased evaluations to support authors in improving their manuscripts while safeguarding the quality of published content.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide objective and fair assessments of manuscripts, free from personal or professional bias.
  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify editors promptly if unable to meet deadlines.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content.
  • Identify and report ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data manipulation, or duplicate submission.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts with unauthorized individuals. Information obtained through peer review cannot be used for personal research or professional advantage.

Conflicts of Interest

  • Reviewers must decline invitations if conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal) could bias their judgment.
  • Any potential conflicts must be disclosed to the editorial office for reassignment if necessary.

Evaluation Criteria

  1. Originality: Does the manuscript present novel findings or approaches?
  2. Scientific Quality: Is the study design robust and methodology sound?
  3. Relevance: Is the research aligned with ADR’s scope in dermatology?
  4. Clarity: Is the manuscript well-structured, written, and referenced?
  5. Ethical Standards: Are patient consent, IRB approvals, and ethical considerations addressed?

Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are encouraged to provide respectful, actionable feedback. Comments should highlight strengths as well as weaknesses, suggesting improvements where possible. Language should remain professional and objective.

Reviewer Ethics

  • Do not exploit unpublished data or ideas from manuscripts.
  • Report suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, falsification) to editors confidentially.
  • Avoid inappropriate or derogatory comments in reports.

Timeliness

Prompt peer review ensures efficient publication. Reviewers unable to complete a review within the timeframe must inform editors immediately, allowing alternative reviewers to be assigned.

Review Report Structure

Reviewers should provide feedback in the following format:

  • Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript.
  • Major Issues: Concerns regarding study design, analysis, or ethics.
  • Minor Issues: Comments on clarity, grammar, or formatting.
  • Recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Recognition of Reviewers

ADR values the contributions of peer reviewers. With consent, reviewers may be acknowledged annually on the journal’s website or receive certificates of appreciation.

FAQs

Can I involve a student or colleague in my review?

Only with prior approval from the editorial office and acknowledgment of their contribution.

How should I handle suspected plagiarism?

Notify the editorial office immediately with specific details; do not contact the authors directly.

Can I suggest citations of my own work?

Yes, if relevant, but suggestions must not be coercive or excessive.