Reviewer's Responsibilities
Peer reviewers are essential contributors to the quality assurance process of the Annals of Proteomics and Bioinformatics (APB). Their objective, expert, and ethical evaluations uphold the journal’s standards of scientific accuracy, originality, and transparency. The following responsibilities define the professional expectations for reviewers serving APB.
1. Objectivity and Impartiality
Reviewers must assess manuscripts solely on their scientific merit, free from bias regarding nationality, gender, religion, or institutional affiliation. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate; evaluations should focus on clarity, rigor, and contribution to the field.
2. Confidentiality
All manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, or discuss the content of submissions with unauthorized individuals. Data or ideas gained through peer review must not be used for personal research or advantage.
3. Timeliness
Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they can provide a thorough review within the designated timeframe (typically 14–21 days). Delays must be communicated promptly to the editorial office to ensure efficient processing.
4. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest that may influence their judgment, including:
- Financial or institutional ties to the subject matter.
- Collaborations or personal relationships with the authors.
- Competitive research interests.
In such cases, the reviewer should decline the review to maintain ethical neutrality.
5. Quality of Review
Reviews should be constructive, detailed, and evidence-based. Each critique should reference specific sections or data, guiding authors toward measurable improvement.
6. Ethical Oversight
Reviewers should report any suspicion of:
- Plagiarism, data fabrication, or image manipulation.
- Unethical research involving humans or animals.
- Duplicate or redundant publication.
Concerns must be reported confidentially to the handling editor, not discussed publicly.
7. Constructive Communication
Feedback should be professional, respectful, and objective. Reviewers should highlight strengths as well as weaknesses, avoiding hostile or dismissive language.
8. Anonymity in Double-Blind Review
APB practices a double-blind review model. Reviewers must avoid including self-identifying information within their reports. Likewise, they should not attempt to discover the identity of the author(s).
9. Use of Technology and AI Tools
Reviewers may use plagiarism detection or language-assistance software to support their evaluation. However, generative AI tools must not be used to write or summarize reviews. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content they submit.
10. Communication with the Editorial Team
All correspondence regarding manuscripts should occur only through the OJS review system or official journal email. Private or external channels are not permitted for review discussions.
11. Ethical Duty to Decline
Reviewers should decline review invitations if they feel unqualified, have limited expertise on the topic, or cannot deliver a fair and timely assessment.
12. Post-Review Conduct
After completing the review, reviewers must delete all related files and not retain any part of the manuscript. They should not discuss the paper until it has been published.
13. Recognition of Contribution
Reviewers may opt to receive formal acknowledgment or verified credit via Publons or ORCID. APB provides annual certificates to reviewers who consistently demonstrate quality and reliability.
14. Continuous Learning
Reviewers are encouraged to participate in COPE and WAME peer-review training programs to strengthen their evaluation skills and ethical awareness.
15. Contact Information
- Peer Review Office
Annals of Proteomics and Bioinformatics (APB)
Email: [email protected]
Publisher: Heighten Sciences Publication Incorporation
Website: www.proteobiojournal.com