Responsibilities of the Reviewer

UJPR’s reviewers perform work for the journal on a volunteer basis. Given that most of these individuals are in full-time employment, their reviewing activities for UJPR must, by necessity, not be their top priority. Reviewers are free to decline invitations to review particular manuscripts at their discretion, for example, if their current employment workload and/or other commitments make it prohibitive for them to complete a review in a timely fashion and to do justice to the task. They should also not accept manuscript review assignments for which they feel unqualified. Reviewers who have accepted manuscript assignments are normally expected to submit their reviews within three weeks. They should recuse themselves from the assignment if it becomes apparent to them at any stage that they do not possess the required expertise to perform the review or that they may have a potential conflict of interest in performing the review (e.g., one resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript). Privileged information or ideas got by reviewers through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as allowed by the UJPR Editor. When conducting their reviews, reviewers are asked to do so as objectively as possible, refraining from engaging in personal criticism of the author(s). They are encouraged to express their views clearly, explaining and justifying all recommendations made. They should always attempt to provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the author(s) in improving their work, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not publishable. Reviewers should identify in their reviews relevant published work that the author(s), together with any instances in which proper attribution of sources has not been provided, has not cited. They should call to the responsible editor’s attention any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and other published manuscripts of which they are aware, as well as any concerns they might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript.