By accepting an invitation to review a manuscript for Current Health Sciences Journal, reviewers agree to act in accordance with generally accepted publication ethics and best practices (including the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE). Medical University Publishing House Craiova fully adheres to these guidelines and supports reviewers, authors and editors in ensuring integrity through the publishing process.
According to these guidelines, we require all appointed peer reviewers to maintain the confidentiality of the entire peer review process, communication with the journal regarding the reviewed paper, as well as of any details of the reviewed manuscript or data related to it, during or after the peer review process.
Duties of the reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Any selected expert who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor in order to re-assign the review to another referee.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Reviewers and editors are required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Duties of the editors
Publication decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Editors should recuse themselves (should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Response to ethical issues
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher.