Instructions for reviewer
The main principle of sending article for a review is to improve the quality and avoid creation of inappropriate/ not academically viable knowledge statements. Conscientious peer review is a time¬-consuming task but is essential to assure the quality of scientific journals. The International Journal of Primatology and the International Primatological Society are very grateful for the time and effort you invest in the review process.We use a wide range of sources to identify potential reviewers, including the editorial board, personal knowledge, author suggestions, and bibliographic databases. Reviewers’ evaluations play a major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication.
- Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. If the research reported in the manuscript is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Personal criticism is likely to lead an author to ignore useful comments, making your review less useful to your field. Criticisms should be objective, not merely differences of opinion, and intended to help the author improve his or her paper.
- You should decline to review manuscripts in which you have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- Respect the confidentiality of the manuscript, which is sent to you in confidence. You should not discuss unpub¬lished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in your own work. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission to do so from the editor. Your review and your recommendation should also be considered confidential.
COMMENTS TO THE EDITOR
Your Comments to the Editor will be submitted to the Handling Editor and the Editor-in-Chief only. These should include any possible conflicts of interest. Comments and constructive criticism of the manuscript should be placed in the Comments to the Author.
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR
Your Comments to the Author will be submitted to the Handling Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. They are also communicated to the authors and to the other anonymous reviewers of the manuscript once the editor has made a decision.
Comments should be constructive and designed to enhance the manuscript. You should consider yourself the authors’ mentor. Make your comments as complete and detailed as possible. Express your views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary. Include clear opinions about the strengths, weaknesses and relevance of the manuscript, its originality and its importance to the field. Specific comments that cite line numbers are most helpful. If you feel unqualified to address certain aspects of the manuscript, please include a statement to identify these areas.
Begin by identifying the major contributions of the paper. What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and its suitability for publication? Please include both general and specific comments bearing on these questions, and emphasize your most significant points.
Review Report should address the following points:
- Relevance of the paper
- Language (errors/ correct)
- References (original/ secondary/ uniformity/ complete:
- Is the paper contributing new knowledge
- Clarity and Coherence of the text
- Your suggestions for improvement
- Your recommendation (paper should be published or rejected?)
Ethical code for peer reviewers
The main principle of sending article for a review is to improve the quality and avoid creation of inappropriate/ not academically viable knowledge statements.
1. Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise.
2. Always maintain the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process.
3. Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
4. Not to get influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
5. To be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or
inflammatory and from making derogatory personal comments.
6. Agree to review a manuscript if peer reviewer is fairly confident that he/she can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.7. Notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further.