Reviewer's Responsibilities

At the Annals of Biomedical Science and Engineering (ABSE), reviewers are key guardians of research integrity and publication excellence. Their role extends beyond evaluation—they help improve manuscripts, uphold transparency, and ensure that every published article meets international scientific and ethical standards. This guide outlines reviewer responsibilities across ethical, practical, and procedural dimensions, fully aligned with COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ICMJE recommendations, and WAME standards.

1. Core Purpose of Reviewing

The goal of peer review is to ensure scientific credibility and clarity while offering authors constructive feedback. Reviewers are expected to approach each submission with impartiality, integrity, and respect, balancing critical evaluation with mentorship for improvement.

2. Ethical Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Treat all submissions and communications as strictly confidential.
  • Integrity: Evaluate the manuscript objectively, avoiding bias or discrimination.
  • Disclosure: Declare potential conflicts of interest (financial, personal, institutional).
  • Non-exploitation: Never use unpublished data or ideas from the manuscript for personal research.
  • Transparency: Clearly justify all recommendations with evidence-based reasoning.

3. Review Structure

ABSE recommends a structured review format divided into three clear sections:

  1. Summary of Work: A brief overview in your own words confirming your understanding of the research.
  2. Major and Minor Comments: Highlight key strengths and weaknesses logically—methods, results, conclusions.
  3. Recommendation: Indicate one outcome—Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject—and justify it concisely.

4. Professional Conduct in Reviewing

Reviewers should maintain courtesy and professionalism in tone. Comments must focus on science, not the authors. Constructive, solution-oriented suggestions are valued more than criticism alone.

“The best review strengthens a manuscript—never discourages the author.”

5. Reviewer Checklist (Before Submitting Your Review)

  • Have I understood the main hypothesis and contribution clearly?
  • Are the methods valid and sufficiently detailed for replication?
  • Is data interpretation consistent with the presented evidence?
  • Have I cited relevant recent literature (2020-2025) if missing?
  • Is my review free from personal opinions or unverified claims?

6. Managing Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts may arise if a reviewer has close collaboration, competition, or financial relationships with the authors. If uncertain, notify the handling editor immediately. Transparency maintains credibility and impartiality throughout the process.

7. Confidentiality Standards

All documents, data, and communications must remain private:

  • Do not share manuscripts with colleagues or students.
  • Do not discuss the paper outside the review process.
  • Delete downloaded files after review completion.
  • Submit comments exclusively through the OJS platform.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

AI may assist with grammar or citation formatting, but reviewers must not use AI tools to generate review text or summaries. Confidential content should never be entered into AI systems. Reviewers remain fully accountable for their evaluations.

9. Confidential Comments to Editor

The “Comments to the Editor” box within OJS is confidential. Use it for ethical or technical concerns—such as suspected plagiarism, data falsification, or authorship irregularities—that should not appear in the feedback shared with authors.

10. Examples of Constructive Feedback

Unhelpful Comment Constructive Alternative
“The paper is confusing.” “Sections 3 and 4 could be reorganized for clarity. Consider moving background information earlier.”
“This study lacks value.” “The research question is relevant, but adding comparative results with previous models could strengthen significance.”
“Poor English.” “The manuscript would benefit from professional language editing for grammar and flow.”

11. Adherence to Timelines

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the specified deadline (usually 14 days). If additional time is required, notify the editor promptly. Consistent timeliness supports fair and efficient publication cycles.

12. Recognition of Reviewers

ABSE acknowledges the invaluable contribution of reviewers through:

  • Annual reviewer certificates upon request.
  • Optional recognition in the “Acknowledgment to Reviewers” section.
  • Recommendation letters for exceptional review quality and consistency.

13. OJS Reviewer Workflow (Step-by-Step)

  1. Login: Access your account at the ABSE OJS portal.
  2. Review Request: Accept or decline within 48 hours based on expertise and availability.
  3. Download Manuscript: Review securely within OJS; do not forward files externally.
  4. Submit Review: Fill both “Comments to Author” and “Comments to Editor” boxes.
  5. Recommendation: Select decision (Accept / Minor / Major Revision / Reject).
  6. Confirm Completion: Click “Submit Review to Editor.”

14. Dealing with Ethical Concerns

If you identify potential issues such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, or image manipulation, do not contact authors directly. Instead, flag your concerns privately to the editor or Ethics Committee. All cases are handled confidentially following COPE flowcharts.

15. Handling Revisions and Re-Reviews

When a manuscript is revised, the same reviewers are usually re-invited to verify whether comments have been addressed adequately. Please assess only the revised sections and refer to your previous comments for continuity.

16. Post-Review Confidentiality

After submitting your review:

  • Do not attempt to contact authors or share final decisions.
  • Delete all manuscript files from your device.
  • Refrain from discussing unpublished material in future research until it is formally published.

17. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can I co-review with a student or colleague?

Only with prior editor approval. The co-reviewer must be identified and agree to confidentiality before participation.

What if I’m not an expert in one aspect of the paper?

Indicate this in your review so editors can invite additional specialists if necessary.

How should I handle poor language quality?

Comment respectfully and suggest language revision; focus on clarity of content, not grammatical perfection.

18. Ethical Reminder

“Being a reviewer means acting as a mentor and gatekeeper—balancing constructive critique with integrity and respect for authors’ efforts.”

19. Contact

© 2025 Annals of Biomedical Science and Engineering (ABSE). All rights reserved. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.