ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and a critical component of the editorial decision-making process. Reviewers support Editors by evaluating the quality, validity, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts and by providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. The credibility, quality, and reputation of a journal depend heavily on the integrity, transparency, and rigor of its peer-review process. Reviewers accept an ethical responsibility to conduct evaluations professionally, objectively, and in a timely manner. In line with the policies of the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan, the Journal of Biomolecules, Pathogenesis and Therapeutics (JBPT) outlines the following ethical responsibilities for reviewers. 

1. Suitability and Promptness

Reviewers should inform the Editor promptly if they lack the subject expertise required to evaluate a manuscript or if they are unable to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe. Review assignments should be accepted only when reviewers can meet the agreed deadlines. Review reports should be submitted promptly, and any anticipated delays must be communicated to the Editor in advance. Reviewers should avoid unnecessary delays in the review process, including unwarranted requests for additional data or information.

2. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively and based solely on scholarly merit, scientific rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Evaluations and recommendations should be clearly reasoned and supported by evidence. Reviewers should avoid unsupported assertions, personal criticism, or derogatory language toward authors. Assessments must not be influenced by personal, financial, intellectual, institutional, or ideological biases.

3. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal research or advantage without written permission from the Editor. All data and findings presented in manuscripts are confidential and must not be exploited for personal benefit. Any potential conflicts of interest, whether personal, financial, professional, intellectual, political, or religious, must be disclosed to the Editor. If a reviewer is conducting similar research or believes they cannot provide an unbiased assessment, the manuscript should be returned to the Editor without review, along with an appropriate explanation.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not discuss, disclose, share, store, or distribute the content of a manuscript with anyone without explicit authorization from the Editor. No part of the manuscript may be used or cited prior to publication.

5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should promptly inform the Editor if they suspect ethical issues such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or substantial similarity to previously published work. Concerns regarding fabricated, falsified, or unrealistic data or results should be reported. Reviewers should also notify the Editor of potential ethical violations involving human or animal subjects, including lack of informed consent, inappropriate ethical approval, or improper treatment of vulnerable populations. Failure to appropriately acknowledge or reference prior work should likewise be reported.

6. Originality

When assessing originality, reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript contributes meaningful and novel knowledge to the existing literature. Consideration should be given to the clarity, relevance, and alignment of research questions or hypotheses with the study objectives, as well as the novelty of the study design, data, methodology, or interpretation.

7. Structure and Presentation

Reviewers should assess the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines, clarity and quality of language, and overall readability. The originality, clarity, and accuracy of tables, figures, illustrations, and images should be evaluated for consistency with the reported results. Reviewers should also examine the appropriateness and rigor of statistical analyses, the adequacy and transparency of the methodology, the logical coherence between data, results, discussion, and conclusions, and the presence of typographical or formatting errors.

8. Review Report

Reviewers must present their comments clearly and explicitly, as authors will only have access to the reviewer reports. Where applicable, prescribed review forms should be completed in full. Reviewers are encouraged to provide a concise summary outlining the manuscript’s strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution. Identified deficiencies should be described clearly and specifically to assist both the Editor and authors. Recommendations should be clearly stated as one of the following: acceptance without revision, acceptance with revision, or rejection, with appropriate justification. Reviewers should clearly outline required revisions and be willing to reassess revised manuscripts if requested. Final publication decisions rest solely with the Editor, and reviewers serve in an advisory capacity.