Reviewer's Responsibilities

Peer reviewers are vital contributors to the Annals of Dermatological Research (ADR), ensuring the quality, accuracy, and credibility of published research. These responsibilities emphasize confidentiality, fairness, integrity, and constructive engagement throughout the review process, in alignment with COPE, ICMJE, and WAME standards.

Reviewers serve the academic community by providing unbiased, respectful, and timely assessments that help authors improve their manuscripts and support ADR’s mission of advancing dermatological science.

Core Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts as confidential documents and do not share content with unauthorized individuals.
  • Objectivity: Provide fair and evidence-based evaluations without personal, political, or professional bias.
  • Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or decline promptly if unable to do so.
  • Constructive Feedback: Offer clear, respectful, and actionable suggestions to improve manuscript quality.

Ethical Obligations

  • Report suspected ethical violations, including plagiarism, data falsification, or duplicate publication.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest that could bias the review, such as financial ties or collaborative relationships with authors.
  • Avoid coercive citation practices or recommending unnecessary references to one’s own work.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts on:

  1. Originality: Does the research present novel insights into dermatology?
  2. Scientific Rigor: Is the study design, methodology, and data analysis sound?
  3. Relevance: Does the research align with ADR’s scope and readership?
  4. Presentation: Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and properly referenced?
  5. Ethics: Have appropriate ethical approvals and patient consents been obtained?

Constructive Engagement

Reviewers should highlight both strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript, encouraging authors to refine their work. Feedback must be professional, avoiding derogatory or dismissive language.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must inform editors of any conflicts (financial, institutional, or personal). If conflicts prevent an unbiased review, the invitation must be declined.

Review Structure

A structured review should typically include:

  • Summary: Concise description of the manuscript’s content and relevance.
  • Major Issues: Critical points regarding validity, design, or interpretation.
  • Minor Issues: Comments on clarity, style, or formatting.
  • Recommendation: Clear advice to accept, revise, or reject.

Post-Review Responsibilities

Reviewers may be asked to re-evaluate revised manuscripts. They should check whether authors have addressed prior comments and whether the manuscript has improved sufficiently for publication.

Professional Conduct

  • Maintain respectful communication with editors and authors.
  • Avoid personal criticism of authors.
  • Recognize the collaborative nature of peer review as a service to the scientific community.

FAQs

Can I involve a student or junior colleague in the review?

Only with prior permission from the editor, and the co-reviewer’s contribution must be acknowledged.

What if I suspect plagiarism?

Notify the editor confidentially with specific details; do not contact the author directly.

Can I recommend my own work be cited?

Yes, if directly relevant, but suggestions must not be excessive or self-serving.