Peer Reviewers Guidelines
Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two to four experts. SEEd Medical Publishers Open Access Books are revised using a single-blind peer review system. Reviewers should ensure that their reports are anonymous and do not include identifiable information such as tracked changes or comments.
Peer Reviewers will be asked to select their recommendation among the following:
- Accept submission without editorial revisions.
- Revisions required: the Author is invited to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns. Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the Press Editor.
- Resubmit for review: the Author is invited to substantially revise the manuscript in terms of consistency, writing, and organization before reconsideration. Resubmitted manuscripts are reviewed by the Press Editor and Reviewers.
- Resubmit elsewhere: the Author is invited to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate Publisher.
- Decline submission: the book/chapter is not adequate for publication, usually because of major interpretational problems, poor quality, or ethical problems.
They should also alert the Editors of any issues relating to Author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.
Publication of books is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by Peer Reviewers and Editors. The Reviewers may also be asked whether the writing is comprehensible and how interesting they consider the book.
Points to Consider
A checklist is provided in order to help the Reviewers to ensure that a complete revision is submitted.
Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the Editors make a decision on publication and the Author(s) improve their manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether there are additional data required. Where possible, Reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.
Reviewers are reminded of the importance of timely reviews.Any manuscript sent for peer review is a confidential document and should remain so until it is formally published.
All Peer Reviewers are asked to declare their competing interests in relation to the book/chapter they are reviewing. The Peer Reviewer declaration is included in the confidential comment report.
In the context of peer review, a competing interest exists when the Reviewer’s interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Reviewers should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment were they to become public after the publication of the manuscript.
Reviewers are asked to complete a declaration, after considering the following questions:
- Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this book/chapter, either now or in the future?
- Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this book/chapter, either now or in the future?
- Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
- Do you have any other financial competing interests?
- Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this book/chapter?