Peer Reviewers
Ethical and Practical Guidance for Peer Reviewers
Contents
1.1 Peer Reviewers’ Ethical Obligations
1.2 Instructions for Peer Reviewers
1.1 Peer Reviewers’ Ethical Obligations
Peer reviewers are an integral part of the academic community and are essential for the maintenance of academic standards. As a result, the Thai Journal of Public Health is committed to ensuring that all peer reviewers receive essential guidelines about conducting ethical and accountable peer reviews. This document has been designed to increase reviewers’ awareness of their ethical obligations and provide advice. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers can also be downloaded: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers). The Thai Journal of Public Health operates a double-blind model of peer review. Everyone who conducts peer review for the Thai Journal of Public Health must strictly adhere to correct ethical conduct, stated as follows.
PEER REVIEWERS MUST:
1. Provide valid and verifiable contact details.
2. Only agree to a review a manuscript which falls within the remit of their expertise.
3. Produce reviews that are objective and constructive, which can help authors to improve their work.
4. Deliver professional unbiased reviews in a timely, polite and respectful manner.
5. Maintain confidentiality by avoiding wording that could reveal personal identity.
6. Decline to proceed with the peer review if he/she becomes aware of the identity of the author(s), and immediately notify the editorial office.
7. Declare any competing interests, either personal, financial, intellectual or otherwise, to the editorial office.
8. Notify the editorial office immediately if he/she suspects plagiarism or has any other ethical concerns.
PEER REVIEWERS MUST NOT:
1. Impersonate another person.
2. Breach confidentiality by: a) sharing a manuscript or any part of a manuscript with another person, b) assigning another person to do the peer review, or (c) by any other means.
3. Review a manuscript only to gain access to it for personal benefit or for the benefit of his/her associates.
4. Use hostile or offensive or libelous or derogatory language.
5. Display any form of personal prejudice, including that related to race, cultural practices, religion, sexuality, disability, or mental health.
1.2 Instructions for Peer Reviewers
The Thai Journal of Public Health provides Peer Reviewers’ Comment Forms, which reviewers must use to provide their written feedback. Each type of manuscript has a different set of evaluation criteria. The editorial team will forward the anonymized reviewers' comments to the authors.
1.2.1 Tips for providing helpful and constructive comments
- Make sure comments are specific and refer to page and/or line numbers.
- Provide supporting evidence for any arguments made (e.g. a reference) when advising authors to revise/check/amend a word/sentence/section of the manuscript.
- Outline any weaknesses in the manuscript in a polite manner, and provide constructive advice on ways in which the authors can resolve or address these weaknesses.
- Do not attempt to make authors’ re-write their manuscript in your personal or preferred style.
- Focus on the scientific soundness, quality, rigor and clarity of the manuscript.
- If recommending the addition of references to support information, suggest several sources, rather than one option; reviewers should avoid manipulating authors’ reference lists.
