Reviewers should not share any information from an assigned manuscript with outsiders without the prior permission from the Editor or preserve the data from an assigned manuscript. They should adhere to IT Medical Team policy of confidential peer review of their journals. This includes, but is not restricted to, keeping their identity hidden from authors and not externally distributing any work that is passed to them for their eyes only.
Reviewers are expected to only accept invitations to review work that is relevant to their own expertise and speciality. They should complete the review with fair expertise. Assigned Reviewer with insufficient expertise should feel accountable and may decline the review as it is presumed that reviewer will be an expert in the respective field.
Reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the work, recognize negative aspects constructively, and recommend the improvement needed. A reviewer should explain and justify his or her judgment clearly enough that Editors and Authors can comprehend the premise of the remarks. 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. A reviewer ought not to utilize any sort of oppressive language while remarking on an article. Judgment of each article should be managed with no inclination and individual enthusiasm by the assigned reviewer.
Review submitted should be done in a responsible, impartial and timely manner. Any suspected ethical misconduct should be reported as part of a thorough and honest review of the work. Reviewer’s decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather than financial, racial, ethnic origin etc., of the authors.
To the extent feasible, the reviewer should minimize the conflict of interest. In such situation, reviewer should notify the editor describing the conflict of interest. Reviewers should morally abide to provide the review comments within the stipulated time and be active enough in responding to the queries raised by the editor if any. Remain in good communication with both the publisher and the editor.