The Peer Review Process Can Create Conflicts of Interest Because the Choice of Who Reviews

PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW

PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW

SELECTION OF REVIEWERS

All manuscripts submitted to Bentham Open Publishers (BSP) are peer-reviewed by members of the journals' editorial board, good reviewers, and the editor-in-chief. Only those manuscripts which successfully meet our quality requirements are published.

External reviewers are selected from PubMed and WOS, depending on the field of expertise relevant to the articles' telescopic. Members of the editorial board and Bentham's reviewer panel are also invited to share their stance.

PEER REVIEW INVITATION

Manuscripts are forwarded to editors for evaluation initially and subsequently to contained external reviewers to check if the research work presented in the manuscript:

• Falls within the scope of the periodical and
• Meets the editorial criteria of BSP in terms of originality and quality.

Regarding the first betoken, editors may recommend the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript by conducting the telescopic review themselves, based on their knowledge and experience, or they may take assistance and advice from other experts in the field.

Regarding the second point, Bentham conducts independent peer review on all papers submitted for publication. Before sending whatsoever manuscript to reviewers, Bentham Open seeks consent from potential reviewers and editorial board members about their availability and willingness to review the paper. Correspondence between the members of the journal's editorial office and the reviewers is kept confidential. The reviewers are asked to:

• Accept or decline review invitation based on the championship and abstract.
• Suggest alternative reviewers (optional) if the reviewers decline the review invitation based on their field of expertise not being directly relevant to the commodity scope, their busy schedule, or any potential disharmonize of interest with the authors.

Access to the total-text version of the manuscript is provided to the agreed reviewers via our online system (https://bentham.manuscriptpoint.com/manuals/index.html). To use our online peer-review system module, delight read the reviewer's transmission or watch the tutorial.

Bentham follows a single-blind peer-review procedure where the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the authors.

Bentham follows a single-bullheaded peer-review process where the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the authors, and also review report of ane reviewer is kept confidential with other reviewers.

Later on receiving the review of the manuscript by at least three independent experts, in addition to the views of the editor, the decision is relayed to the authors via our Manuscript Processing System (MPS), which may be categorized equally:

• Requires no changes
• Requires minor changes
• Requires major changes
• Rejected but may be resubmitted
• Rejected with no resubmission

PURPOSE OF A REVIEW

A review report provides the editor-in-master/senior editor with an skillful opinion on the quality of the manuscript under consideration. It also supplies authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers to brand them acceptable for publication in the journal. Remarks that may aid improve the quality of the manuscript are forwarded to the authors for their consideration.

SELFLESS PEER REVIEW

BOP aims to facilitate objective peer review gratis of self-interested bias. It is highly recommended to avert self-promotion in whatever form, including the following:

• Potentially competitive piece of work, whether in progress or submitted elsewhere, must not impact the timeliness of the manuscript or editorial assessment.
• All requests for particular citations must be relevant to the submission. During peer-review, referencing citations of the authors' own or his/her coworkers' publications must be avoided.
• Unless approved by the publisher, reference to articles with actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest must be avoided. Competing interests guidelines must be followed.

HOW TO REVIEW

Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports (depending on the blazon of article):

• Does the article lie inside the scope of the journal?
• Is the manuscript written comprehensively? If not, how could it be improved?
• Have adequate proofs been provided for the declaration?
• Is this a new/ original contribution of significance?
• Does the newspaper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments? In the case of experimentation on man subjects, has informed consent been taken?
• Has the writer provided the approval from the local institutional review board? Or does the manuscript conform to the Helsinki Declaration on human experiments in the "Methods" section? For further details, please visit: https://openpainjournal.com/research-ethics-policies.php
• Have the authors used the Reporting Guidelines, i.e., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, STARD, CARE, EQUATOR, in their studies (if applicable)? For further details, delight visit: https://openpainjournal.com/standards-of-reporting.php
• Has the writer obtained the approval of the institutional ethics committee regarding experimentation on animals or other species? Is the name of the species mentioned in the article'south title, abstract, and methods section? For more details, please visit https://openpainjournal.com/inquiry-ideals-policies.php
• Bentham Open encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supporting information online. Does any particular method used in the manuscript warrant such a protocol?
• Are figures/illustrations of appropriate quality?
• Is the sample size acceptable for the study?
• What are the main findings of the paper?
• Is relevant work of other authors in the field appropriately best-selling and comprehensive references given to the previous relevant literature?

During the review procedure, if reviewers detect whatsoever scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, conflict of interest, or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they are expected to inform the editorial office immediately. Similarly, if they think that they are unable to review a certain section of the manuscript, then the editorial function should also exist informed.

Reviewers are required to rate manuscripts on each of the above mentioned points forth with their remarks for authors and editors. For further details, please review a sample evaluation form [Template Evaluation Grade]. The authors are conveyed the comments of the reviewers, and given the opportunity to respond to them. In case the author does not agree with the comments of the reviewer, and so the Editor-in-Chief may decide in the matter or the manuscript may be conveyed to boosted reviewers for a conclusion. The identity of the reviewers is always kept strictly confidential.

Publishers recommend that reviewers review COPE Ethical Guidelines to provide quality unbiased review reports. Please read the complete guidelines at Commission on Publication Ethics available online.

BSP recommends its reviewers to strictly adhere to COPE guidelines to comply with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Delight also refer to the COPE's most popular resources, i.e., core practices, flowcharts, eLearning courses, and cases (bachelor at COPE'southward website).

PRIVACY STATEMENT

The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. They should consult the EIC/senior editor and accept permission before consulting some other colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers should not disclose any information whatever to anyone before the publication of the manuscript.

Peer Review Manipulation

Peer-review manipulations are dealt with as per the guidelines given by COPE.

• Peer-review manipulation suspected during the peer-review process [VIEW FLOW Nautical chart].
• Peer-review manipulation suspected subsequently publication [VIEW Menstruation CHART].

REVIEW Time

The agreed reviewers are expected to provide their reports within 2-3 weeks since a prompt review leads to the timely publication of a manuscript, which is beneficial not only to the authors but likewise to the scientific customs. However, a reviewer who needs extra fourth dimension for reviewing should consult the editorial function. The average review time of a journal is 45 days, but information technology may vary depending on the availability of reviewers.

The authors may also opt for Quick Track Facility on certain charges for the processing of their manufactures on the fast rail, but please notation that standard reviewing practices will exist followed, which will non, in whatever way, affect the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript by the reviewers.

CHANGES IN REVIEW REPORTS

The editorial staff relays the comments of the reviewers on behalf of the editor-in-chief/treatment editor. The review reports are edited by the editor-in-chief/handling editor if the comments comprise confidential information or are written in a language not suitable for scholarly communication. Reviewers should include such comments in the confidential section of the review course, which is intended to be read past the editors but.

CONFLICT OF Interest

Bentham Open respects requests for not having the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have a competing involvement with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for editors to exist aware of all competing interests; therefore, we wait that reviewers would inform the editor-in-chief/handling editor/ editorial manager if they find any potential competing interest during review of a manuscript; reviewers are not encouraged to contact authors directly regarding any of their conflict of interest. Peer reviewers should follow journals' policies in situations they consider to correspond a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the editorial manager in instance: they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a task in that location), they are or have been recent (e.g., inside the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, and they have a shut personal relationship with any of the authors. Reviewers are asked to re-confirm that they practice not have any conflict of interest with the authors of the submitted manuscript at the time of review completion. For farther details, please visit: https://openpainjournal.com/instructions-for-authors.php

EDITORIAL Decision

The authors are usually requested to resubmit the revised paper within xv days, and it is then returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. The publishers unremarkably allow i round of revision, and in exceptional cases, a 2d circular of revision may be allowed. If further revision is needed, then the manuscript is rejected, and the author is requested to resubmit the manuscript for fresh processing.

The last decision regarding acceptance or rejection is by the editor-in-main, depending on his/her assessment on the revisions recommended by the referees, and most the overall quality of the revised manuscript. In rare cases, manuscripts recommended for publication by the referees may be rejected in the final assessment by the editor-in-chief.

TRANSFERRED ARTICLES

If a manuscript is rejected due to its unsuitability according to the aims and telescopic of a particular journal, so information technology may be transferred to some other periodical (with the consent of the writer) that has a similar scope as the manuscript. For farther details, please visit: https://openpainjournal.com/manuscript-transfer-facility.php

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

By and large, editorial decisions past Bentham Open are not reverted. Notwithstanding, authors who recall that their manuscript was rejected due to a misunderstanding or mistake may seek an explanation for the decision. Appeals must requite sound reasoning and compelling prove against the criticism raised in the rejection alphabetic character. A divergence of opinion regarding the involvement, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal will not exist considered an appeal. The editor-in-master and other relevant editors will consider the appeal, and the decision thereafter taken past the periodical will be deemed final. Acceptance of the manuscript is not guaranteed fifty-fifty if the journal agrees to reconsider the manuscript, and the afterthought procedure may involve previous or new reviewers or editors and substantive revision.

Complaints on ethical practices or academic misconduct volition be handled according to the processes outlined in our academic misconduct guidelines.

Authors who wish to brand a complaint should refer to the editor-in-chief of the periodical concerned by contacting the editorial role. Complaints to the publisher may be emailed to info@benthamscience.net. Bentham Open sends an acknowledgment to the complainant and undertake appropriate action. For matters involving the editor-in-chief of a journal, Bentham Open seeks the stance of the editor-in-chief and suitable activeness is and then taken.

REVIEWRS' Acknowledgment

Bentham Open up greatly appreciates the reviewers for their efforts and valuable time during the peer-review process. Therefore, it publishes names of reviewers nether the section "Acquittance to the reviewers" who have reviewed manuscripts for over 12 months, whether manuscripts are published or not.

The complete peer-review history of a reviewer is maintained in our Online Manuscript Processing Arrangement. Each review is awarded some points, which tin be redeemed by reviewers whenever they require.

Bentham Open up has also fabricated its publication and review data available on Publons. Publons provides formal recognition to our peer reviewers by producing a verified record of their peer reviews and editorial contributions to bookish journals. Learn more well-nigh Publons here:

https://publons.com/publisher/219/bentham-science-publishers

BECOME A REVIEWER

For joining our reviewers' console, the candidates must take

• Ph.D. caste and research experience in the main bailiwick of the journal and the articles under review
• Reviewed manuscripts earlier
• Published manuscripts that are very well-cited by the research community.

Those willing to join our reviewers' console are expected to submit their details at (REVIEWER REGISTRATION Grade)

lykeyonge1956.blogspot.com

Source: https://openpainjournal.com/conflict-of-interest.php

Share this post