/based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors/

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. For example, Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Main responsibilities of the reviewers

The reviewer is expected to assess the general qualities of a given manuscript as scientific soundness, logical coherence, similarity with other articles and so. He is supposed to decide whether a manuscript delivers well the main idea of the author and if it needs some corrections into style or clearness to inform the corresponding editor. The reviewer should decide if the manuscript is sufficiently original, if it expands on the researchers conducted so far in the respective area.  And also, does it fulfil the main goals presented in the introduction and does it clearly, concisely, but nevertheless, completely deliver its conclusions.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

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. They should be politically correct and constructive in their reports.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. They should state if an observation, derivation, or argument presented in the given text 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

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.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. 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.