METRIC
Medical Education Training
Research Innovation and Clinical Care
Reviewers: Guidance and Responsibilities
Responsibilities of reviewers

Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the merits
and the value of the work, together with the documented basis for the
reviewer’s opinion

Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s
expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review

Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the
submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to
the journal by the author

Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating
ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using
whatever rating scale provided by the editorial board

Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of
ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity
between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any
manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal which may be
known to the reviewer
Guidance for reviewers
We would expect the following information from reviewers about manuscripts
submitted to the journal

What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the
claims to the originality of this one.

Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are
there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained
adequately why the deviations occurred?

Would any other experiments or additional information improve the
paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done
and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to
see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital? Do you feel these
results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the
subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

Is this paper of interest to the readership of the Journal audience?

If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form,
does the study itself show sufficient enough potential that the authors
should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?
In the case of manuscripts deemed worthy of consideration, we would appreciate
additional advice from the reviewer on the following:

Is the manuscript clearly enough written so that it is understandable to
non-specialists? If not, how could it be improved? (Please concentrate on
matters of organization and content and not on grammatical or spelling
errors that will be corrected by our copyeditor after acceptance.)

Have the authors provided adequate proof for their claims without
overselling them?

Have the authors cited the previous literature appropriately?

Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its
experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

METRIC encourages authors to publish detailed methods as supporting
information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript
warrant such publication?
Ethical responsibilities of reviewers
Confidentiality
Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone
outside the review process unless necessary and approved by the editor.
Material submitted for peer-review is a privileged communication that
should be treated in confidence, taking care to guard the author’s identity
and work. Because the author may have chosen to exclude some people from
this process, no one not directly involved with the manuscript, including
colleagues or other experts in the field, should be consulted by the reviewer
unless such consultations have first been discussed with the professional editor.
Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and should not
use the knowledge of their content for any purpose unrelated to the peer
review process. If a reviewer is unsure about the policies for enlisting the
help of others in the review process, he or she should ask the editor.
Constructive critique
Reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the mate rial
under review, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the
improvements needed. The purpose of peer review is not to demonstrate
the reviewer’s proficiency in identifying flaws. Reviewers have the
responsibility to identify strengths and provide constructive comments to
help the author resolve weaknesses in the work. A reviewer should respect
the intellectual independence of the author. Anything less leaves the author
with no insight into the deficiencies in the submitted work. A reviewer
should explain and support his or her judgment clearly enough that
reviewers and authors can understand the basis of the comments. The
reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been
previously reported be accompanied by a relevant citation and should
immediately alert the editor when he or she becomes aware of duplicate
publication. Although reviews are confidential, all anonymous comments
should be courteous and capable of withstanding public scrutiny.
Competence
Reviewers who realize that their expertise is limited have a responsibility to
make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Reviewers need not be
expert in every aspect of an article’s content, but they should accept an
assignment only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative
assessment. A reviewer without the requisite expertise is at risk of
recommending acceptance of a submission with substantial deficiencies or
rejection of a meritorious paper. In such cases, the reviewer should decline
the review and provide the names of potential other reviewers.
Impartiality and integrity
Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and
impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional
bias. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s
scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on the
relevance to the journal’s scope and mission, without regard to race, ethnic
origin, sex, religion, or citizenship of the authors.
A reviewer should not take scientific, financial, personal, or other advantage
of material available through the privileged communication of peer review,
and every effort should be made to avoid even the appearance of taking
advantage of information obtained through the review process. Potential
reviewers who are concerned that they have a substantial conflict of
interest should decline the request to review and/or discuss their concerns
with the editor.
Disclosure of conflict of interest
To the extent possible, the review system should be designed to minimise
actual or perceived bias on the reviewer’s part. If reviewers have any
interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either
decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of inte rest to the editor
and ask how best to address it.
Timeliness and responsiveness
Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions
for completing a review, and submitting it in a timely manner. Failure to do
so undermines the review process. Every effort should be made to complete
the review within the time requested. If it is not possible to meet the
deadline for the review, then the reviewer should promptly decline to
perform the review or should inquire whether some accommodat ion can be
made to resolve the problem.
Editing Reviewers' Reports
The reviewers and METRIC staff do not edit any comments made by reviewers
unless the language is deemed inappropriate for professional communication or
the comments contain information considered confidential. In their comments to
authors, reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their
language. If an author feels that criticism is unfair, the editor will reserve the
right to make a final decision/invite another review.
Competing Interests
As far as possible we respect requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom
they consider to be unsuitable. We also, as much as possible, try to rule out
those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest, such as those
who may have been collaborators on other projects with the authors of the
manuscript under review, those who may be direct competitors, those who may
have a known history of antipathy with the author(s), or those who might profit
financially from the work. Because it is not possible for all such competing
interests to be known by a particular editor, we request that reviewers who
recognize a potential competing interest inform the reviewers or journal staff
and excuse themselves if they feel that are unable to offer an impartial review.
When submitting your review you must indicate whether or not you have any
competing interests.
On occasion, reviewers may be asked to offer their opinion on a manuscript that
they may have reviewed for other journals. This is not in itself a competing
interest. That two journals have identified the same person as especially well
qualified to judge the manuscript under consideration does not in any way
decrease the validity of that opinion and may perhaps even enhance it.
Feedback to Reviewers
We send reviewers' comments along with the decision letter to all reviewers of
that manuscript. If reviewers have identified themselves, this information will be
passed on to other reviewers. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in
accordance with the final decision should not feel that their recommendation was
not duly considered or their service not properly appreciated. Experts often
disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a final publication
decision.