Reviewer Policy

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, credibility, and relevance of the Herald of the National Children's Medical Center.

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, constructive, confidential, evidence-based, and timely assessments of manuscripts assigned to them.

A reviewer’s role is advisory. Reviewers provide expert evaluations and recommendations to editors but do not make the final publication decision. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor.

Professional Responsibility and Competence

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient scientific, clinical, methodological, statistical, or other relevant expertise to provide a meaningful assessment of the manuscript.

Before accepting a review, the reviewer should consider whether they:

  • have appropriate expertise in the subject area;
  • can assess the principal methods and conclusions;
  • can provide an impartial review;
  • can complete the review within the requested or mutually agreed timeframe;
  • have any relationship or interest that may interfere with objective judgment.

If the reviewer lacks expertise in an important aspect of the manuscript, this should be disclosed to the editor.

A reviewer who cannot provide an adequate assessment should decline the invitation promptly rather than delay the editorial process.

COPE specifically recommends that reviewers accept manuscripts only when they possess the necessary expertise and can perform the review objectively and within an appropriate timeframe.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship, activity, or interest that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • recent or close scientific collaboration with an author;
  • mentor–mentee or supervisory relationships;
  • direct scientific or professional competition;
  • financial interests connected with the subject of the manuscript;
  • personal relationships;
  • institutional relationships that may compromise independence;
  • involvement in the research under review;
  • intellectual or professional interests that may prevent an impartial assessment.

If a reviewer is uncertain whether a circumstance constitutes a conflict, it should be disclosed to the editor.

The editor determines whether the reviewer may continue.

A reviewer must decline the assignment when a conflict prevents an independent and fair assessment.

ICMJE requires reviewers to disclose relationships or activities that could bias their evaluation and to recuse themselves where a relevant conflict exists.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential scholarly communications.

Reviewers must keep confidential:

  • the existence and content of the manuscript;
  • figures, tables, supplementary files, datasets, and other submitted materials;
  • unpublished methods, results, ideas, and interpretations;
  • editorial correspondence;
  • information concerning the review process.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with unauthorized persons;
  • publicly discuss the manuscript while it is under consideration;
  • use unpublished information for personal, professional, academic, financial, or competitive advantage;
  • use the manuscript or its ideas to disadvantage the authors;
  • retain or distribute copies for unauthorized purposes.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed.

ICMJE describes submitted manuscripts as privileged communications and requires reviewers to protect their contents, not appropriate unpublished ideas, and not retain manuscript copies for personal use.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their reviews.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, supplementary files, unpublished data, or other confidential submission material to external generative AI systems or AI-assisted services where confidentiality and data protection cannot be assured.

If a reviewer wishes to use an AI-assisted tool in connection with a review, they must comply with the journal’s AI policy and obtain prior permission where required.

Where substantive AI assistance is permitted and used, its use must be disclosed to the journal.

AI output must not replace the reviewer’s own professional judgment and must be critically checked for errors, omissions, bias, fabricated information, and inappropriate recommendations.

ICMJE specifically requires reviewers to follow the journal’s AI policy or obtain permission, preserve manuscript confidentiality, disclose relevant AI use, and take responsibility for the validity of the review.

Assistance from Colleagues or Trainees

A reviewer must not transfer the review assignment to another person without permission from the journal.

If assistance from a colleague, trainee, or other specialist would materially improve the review, the reviewer must obtain appropriate editorial permission before sharing confidential manuscript material.

Any person who substantially contributes to the review should be identified to the journal so that their contribution can be recorded appropriately.

The original invited reviewer remains responsible for ensuring that confidentiality and other ethical obligations are respected.

COPE and ICMJE both require appropriate disclosure when another person assists with a review and prohibit unauthorized sharing of confidential manuscripts.

Independent and Objective Assessment

Reviews must be based on the scientific and scholarly merits of the manuscript.

A reviewer’s assessment must not be influenced by:

  • nationality or country of origin;
  • institution or professional status;
  • gender;
  • personal characteristics;
  • political or religious views;
  • commercial considerations;
  • personal relationships;
  • whether the results support or contradict the reviewer’s own research;
  • other factors unrelated to scientific quality.

Comments should be professional, respectful, specific, and constructive.

Hostile, insulting, defamatory, discriminatory, humiliating, or personally directed comments are unacceptable.

COPE identifies objectivity, constructive criticism, absence of bias, and avoidance of hostile or derogatory comments as fundamental responsibilities of peer reviewers.

Scientific Assessment

Reviewers should assess those aspects of the manuscript that fall within their competence.

Depending on the type of study, this may include:

  • originality and scientific significance;
  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • clarity of objectives or research questions;
  • appropriateness of study design;
  • methodology and statistical analysis;
  • adequacy of sample and study population;
  • interpretation of results;
  • consistency between results and conclusions;
  • transparency and completeness of reporting;
  • limitations and potential sources of bias;
  • relevance of references;
  • ethical conduct of the research;
  • protection of human participants;
  • pediatric-specific ethical safeguards;
  • clinical trial registration, where applicable;
  • data and image integrity;
  • adequacy of data availability and reproducibility information.

Reviewers should clearly distinguish major scientific concerns from minor corrections and optional suggestions.

Research Ethics and Participant Protection

Because the journal specializes in Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health, reviewers should pay particular attention to ethical safeguards in studies involving newborns, infants, children, adolescents, and other vulnerable participants.

Where relevant, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appropriately reports:

  • ethics committee approval;
  • informed consent;
  • parental or legally authorized representative permission;
  • child assent;
  • privacy and confidentiality protections;
  • risk–benefit considerations;
  • use of human biological materials or genetic data;
  • clinical trial registration;
  • participant safety and other relevant safeguards.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct an institutional investigation themselves. If a significant ethical concern is identified, it should be communicated confidentially to the editor.

Suspected Misconduct or Integrity Concerns

If a reviewer identifies possible:

  • plagiarism or substantial text overlap;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • inappropriate manipulation of images;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • questionable authorship;
  • citation manipulation;
  • missing or suspicious ethics approval;
  • inadequate consent;
  • peer-review manipulation;
  • another serious research-integrity concern,

the reviewer should notify the editor confidentially and provide a sufficiently specific explanation.

Reviewers should not independently contact the authors’ institution, publicly accuse the authors, or conduct an external investigation unless specifically authorized or required through an appropriate process.

The journal handles such concerns under its Publication Ethics and Research Ethics policies.

Citation Ethics

Reviewers may recommend additional references when those references are genuinely relevant and would materially improve the accuracy, context, or interpretation of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not:

  • require unnecessary citation of their own work;
  • request citations merely to increase citations to a particular journal, institution, researcher, or group;
  • use acceptance recommendations as leverage for inappropriate citation demands.

All citation recommendations should have a legitimate scholarly justification.

Timeliness

Reviewers should respond to invitations and submit their reports within the timeframe requested or mutually agreed with the journal.

If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial office promptly and either:

  • request a reasonable extension; or
  • decline the review so that another reviewer can be invited.

Reviewers should not accept assignments that they know they cannot complete in a reasonable timeframe.

COPE and ICMJE both identify timely response and completion of reviews as core reviewer responsibilities.

Communication with Authors

Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review unless specifically authorized by the editor.

Questions, requests for clarification, concerns, and recommendations should normally be communicated through the journal’s editorial system.

This protects the independence, confidentiality, and double-anonymous nature of the review process.

Reviewer Report

A useful reviewer report should be:

  • clear;
  • evidence-based;
  • constructive;
  • sufficiently detailed;
  • focused on issues relevant to scientific quality;
  • respectful in tone;
  • free from personal attacks.

Reviewers should explain the reasoning behind major recommendations rather than providing only an acceptance or rejection recommendation.

Where possible, comments intended for authors should provide practical guidance on how scientific clarity or quality may be improved.

Confidential comments to the editor should not contradict comments provided to authors without a legitimate reason.

Reviewer Recommendations

Depending on the journal’s workflow, reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision.

The editor may reach a different decision when justified by the manuscript, the quality of the reviews, additional expert advice, ethical considerations, or journal policy.

Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts

A reviewer may be invited to evaluate a revised version of a manuscript.

When conducting re-review, the reviewer should consider:

  • whether the authors adequately addressed major concerns;
  • whether revisions introduced new methodological or interpretive issues;
  • whether the revised conclusions remain supported by the results.

Reviewers should not repeatedly introduce unrelated new requirements unless new issues genuinely arise from the revision.

Information Obtained Through Review

A reviewer must not use knowledge gained through peer review before publication to advance their own research, publications, grants, commercial interests, intellectual property, or competitive position.

Ideas, methods, results, data, and other unpublished material remain the authors’ confidential intellectual work until lawfully made public.

ICMJE specifically prohibits reviewers from using knowledge of unpublished work under review to further their own interests.

Reviewer Identity and Impersonation

Reviewers must provide accurate information about their identity, affiliation, expertise, and contact details.

Impersonating another researcher, creating a fictitious reviewer identity, permitting another person to submit a review under the invited reviewer’s identity, or otherwise falsifying reviewer information constitutes serious misconduct.

COPE explicitly identifies reviewer impersonation as serious misconduct.

Reviewer Misconduct

Possible reviewer misconduct includes:

  • deliberate breach of confidentiality;
  • misuse of unpublished information;
  • undisclosed serious conflicts of interest;
  • impersonation or false identity;
  • intentionally biased or malicious review;
  • coercive citation practices;
  • unauthorized delegation of a review;
  • manipulation of the peer-review process;
  • inappropriate AI use involving confidential material;
  • deliberate obstruction or unfair delay of a competing manuscript.

Where credible concerns arise, the journal may stop using the reviewer, seek clarification, notify an appropriate institution where justified, or take other action consistent with its Publication Ethics policies.

After Completion of the Review

After submitting the review, reviewers should continue to respect confidentiality.

Manuscript files and confidential materials should not be retained or reused for unauthorized purposes.

If a reviewer later discovers an important error, undisclosed conflict of interest, or other issue that could materially affect the review, they should inform the editor promptly.

Policy Application

This Reviewer Policy applies to all persons who participate in external peer review for the journal, including invited reviewers, statistical or methodological reviewers, specialist reviewers, and other experts.

Acceptance of a review invitation signifies an expectation that the reviewer will comply with this policy, the journal’s Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics, Research Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Funding Policy, and Artificial Intelligence Policy.

ISSN 2181-3353 (Print)
ISSN 2181-3353 (Online)