Reviewer's Responsibilities

Peer reviewers are essential to the scholarly publishing process of the Journal of Pulmonology and Respiratory Research (JPRR). Their contributions help maintain the journal’s integrity, ensure scientific rigor, and support authors in improving their manuscripts. This section outlines the core responsibilities reviewers are expected to uphold.

Confidentiality

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents, not to be shared or discussed without permission from the editor.
  • Do not use unpublished data for personal research or benefit.
  • Respect the anonymity of the double-blind peer review process.

Objectivity and Fairness

  • Provide unbiased evaluations based on the content, not the identity of the authors.
  • Avoid personal criticism; maintain a professional and respectful tone.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest that might bias judgment.

Quality of Reviews

Reviewers should:

  • Offer constructive, specific, and actionable feedback.
  • Identify strengths as well as areas for improvement.
  • Assess methodology, ethical standards, and validity of findings.
  • Comment on originality, relevance, and contribution to the field.

Timeliness

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
  • Inform the editor promptly if an extension is needed.
  • Decline review invitations if unable to commit to deadlines.

Ethical Obligations

Reviewers must:

  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, or unethical research practices.
  • Ensure compliance with ethical standards for human and animal studies.
  • Highlight cases where data or methodology appear unreliable.

Review Format

Reviewer reports should follow a clear structure:

  1. Summary: Concise overview of the manuscript’s purpose and key findings.
  2. Major Issues: Concerns about scientific validity, ethics, or originality.
  3. Minor Issues: Language, clarity, or formatting suggestions.
  4. Recommendation: Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers provide critical insights that assist editors in making informed decisions. However, the final decision rests with the editorial team.

Reviewer Conduct

  • Avoid superficial or incomplete reviews.
  • Do not suggest citations to your own work unless essential and relevant.
  • Refrain from coercive practices or requests that are not directly related to manuscript improvement.

Recognition

JPRR values the time and effort of its reviewers. Reviewers may:

  • Receive certificates of appreciation.
  • Be acknowledged annually in the journal.
  • Be invited to join the editorial board based on consistent contributions.

FAQs

What if I lack expertise in part of the manuscript?

Indicate which sections are outside your expertise and focus on areas you can assess reliably.

Can I involve a colleague in the review?

Only with prior approval from the editor, and the colleague must also agree to confidentiality.

How detailed should my review be?

Provide enough detail to justify your recommendation and guide authors in improving their manuscript.

Conclusion

By fulfilling these responsibilities, reviewers contribute to maintaining high academic and ethical standards at JPRR, ensuring that only scientifically sound and valuable research is published.