1. Reviewer Job Description
Review of manuscripts should be made in accordance with acceptable standards established by BJET. If the layout and format of the paper do not conform to BJET template, the reviewer should include this observation in his/her review report. However, if the research paper is exceptionally good or it is a solicited paper, the reviewer may overlook the formatting issues. Reviewers may suggest restructuring a manuscript before publication in order to enhance the quality of the journal.
If there is serious deficiency of language expression, the reviewer should include this in his/her report and suggest the editor to make its proper editing.
Reviewers should pay attention to the clarity of illustrations such as equations, photographs, models, charts, images and figures included in the manuscript. Duplication and redundancy of illustrations should be reported in the review report. Similarly, descriptions provided in the ‘results’ section should correspond with the data presented in tables and illustrations, if not then it should be clearly listed in the review report.
Critical review of statistical analysis of data as well as the rational and appropriateness of the specific analysis should be checked.
Reviewers should read the ‘Methodology’ section in detail to ensure that the authors have demonstrated full understanding of the procedures presented in the manuscript.
The relationship between ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’ should be clearly understood to ensure that conclusions are based on the presented results.
The following questions should be considered during the review:
Is the title of the manuscript appropriate and sufficiently describes the content of the manuscript?
Is the information presented of significant interest to BJET readership?
Is the research objective clearly stated?
Are the methods appropriate and scientifically sound?
Is a valid statistical justification included to support the conclusions?
Are the tables and figures well designed and add to the understanding of the text?
Are the references cited appropriate to support the manuscript?
Does the manuscript contain any material that could be used to harm humans, animals, environment of general public?
2. Ethical Issues
While discharging his/her responsibilities, the reviewer should consider the following ethical issues
a) Suitability and Promptness
Reviewer should inform the editor, immediately, if he/she does not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review of the manuscript assigned to him/her. A reviewer should be responsible and prompt in submitting review report. In case of anticipated delay in submitting the review report, the editor should be informed immediately. A reviewer should not unnecessarily delay the review process by requesting unnecessary additional data/information from the editor or author(s).
b) Originality
The following elements should be used to evaluate the originality of a manuscript: Does the research contribute to the existing knowledge Are the research questions and/or hypotheses appropriate to the objective of the research?
c) Objectivity
Reviews are expected to be objective and carried out with a consideration of high academic, scholarly and scientific standards. All judgments should be made to ensure the full and unambiguous understanding of the reviewer’s comments by the editors and the author(s). Reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but the personality of the author(s). Reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely based on the quality of the manuscript and not influenced, in anyway, by personal, financial, or professional bias.
d) Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
A reviewer should not use any part of the content of the submitted manuscript for his/her own research prior to its publication. Reviewer must declare any potential personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious conflict of interests. In case a reviewer feels unqualified to separate his/her bias, he/she should immediately return the manuscript to the editor without review and offer justifications.
e) Confidentiality
Reviewers should treat the manuscript as a confidential document and must not discuss its content in any platform except in cases where a professional advice is being sought to aid the review process. Reviewers are professionally and ethically bound not to use any part of the manuscript for his/her own research prior to its publication.
f) Ethical Considerations
If reviewer suspects that the manuscript is almost the same as someone else’s work, he/she is obliged to inform the editor and provide its citation as a reference. If reviewer suspects that the results presented in the manuscript are untrue, unrealistic or fake, he/she should inform the editor. If there appears to be an indication for violating the ethical norms in the treatment of animals or human beings, then it should be brought to the attention of the editor. If the manuscript is a replica of an earlier published paper or the work is plagiarized, then this should be brought to the attention of the editor.