Reviewers of Iran J Health Sci must confirm the following:

1. Since the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, a chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.

 2. While a reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author(s), he/she should evaluate objectively the quality of the manuscript.

3. A peer-reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.

4. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except for while he/she seeks specific advice.

 5. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately. Unsupported assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) are of little value and should be avoided.

 6. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant other works.

 7. While a delay in reviewing process seems inevitable, the reviewer might notify the editor of probable delays and propose a revised review date.

 8. Reviewers are not allowed to disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.

 9. Reviewers should notify editors of concerns with respect to manuscripts that report research that can be reasonably expected to be directly misapplied by others.

View: 11102 Time(s)   |   Print: 794 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)


Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb