Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Revista de Pediatria SOPERJ adopts the recommendations of the “Committee on Publication Ethics” regarding the ethical aspects of the editing and publishing process of scientific articles. The integrity and quality of academic publications are ensured through rigorous and professional peer review. Codes of conduct and guidelines for editors and reviewers are available on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website.

Guidelines for Reviewers

These instructions were developed in accordance with the guidance of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and COPE, as summarized in the following topics:

• By agreeing to evaluate a manuscript, the reviewers confirm that the work falls within their area of expertise and that they will be able to provide a coherent and relevant opinion.
• The confidential nature of the review must be respected, so that all unpublished details of the article and its analysis are preserved, both during and after the review process.
• Reviewers are given the option of maintaining double-blind review or disclosing their identity to the authors. Disclosure of identity is currently recommended.
• If, for any reason, the reviewer recognizes the authorship of the manuscript, they must inform the editors.
• The scientific editor should be consulted regarding any questions about the relevance of a given conflict(s) of interest.
• By accepting the commitment to review the manuscript, reviewers agree to and commit themselves to the negotiated deadlines for submitting their reports.
• It is important that, when preparing the review, correctable flaws be pointed out along with what can be done to address them. Reviewers should honestly assess the cost-benefit of each requested change in terms of its actual improvement to the quality of the work. Where scientifically relevant, the reviewer should suggest current (from the last five years) or relevant references for the work and/or its revision.
• To ensure the efficiency of the editorial process, it is important to try to point out all changes deemed pertinent during the first review of the manuscript, thereby avoiding new recommendations with each revised resubmission.
• If the manuscript presents uncorrectable flaws, reviewers should always note them as limitations of the article in the appropriate section; or, if publication is not feasible, recommend its rejection, indicating the reasons that make the flaws unresolvable.