Best Practices Guidelines for Peer Reviewers


 

Introduction

The Technical Committee on Publications and Communications (TCPC) of ASME aims to maintain a high degree of technical, literary, and typographical excellence in its publications.  This document provides ASME best practices guidelines for peer reviewers of manuscripts submitted to ASME Transactions Journals.  Additional information may be provided by the Editor or Associate Editor of a specific journal.  Included in the document is information on selection of reviewers, avoidance of potential conflicts of interest, the timeline and responsibilities of reviewers, and confidentiality.  The overall objective is to aid peer reviewers in their role toward ensuring that ASME Transaction Journals publish quality papers in a timely manner.

 

Because the number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process is an important influence on a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and standing in the field.

 

To acknowledge publically the valued volunteer contributions of reviewers, ASME Transaction journals publish a list of reviewers annually in each journal.

 

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to the ASME Transaction Journals are first screened by the Editor to determine if the content of the manuscript is appropriate for the scope of the journal and if the manuscript merits peer review. Those manuscripts selected for peer-review are assigned to an Associate Editor who provides a second screening of the technical content of the manuscript.  The Associate Editor invites three or more reviewers.  Reviewers are invited on the basis of technical expertise, prior publications in the same topic area, and prior performance as a reviewer (including quality and timeliness). The editors also consider the number of manuscripts sent to a reviewer to avoid overburdening anyone. Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers; however, it is the Associate Editor’s decision to honor such requests.  At least reviews are preferred, but the Associate Editor may act on the basis of fewer (or more) than three reviews. 

 

Invited reviewers will be provided the abstract and the names of the authors when they are invited as reviewers.  The full paper will be accessible after the review assignment is accepted.  Reviewers are requested to accept or decline the invitation to review within 3 days of the request. 

 

If a reviewer cannot complete the review for any reason, including a conflict of interest, inability to provide comments within the requested timeframe, or unfamiliarity with the research area, the reviewer should inform the Associate Editor within 3 days and if possible suggest other qualified reviewers.  If, after agreeing to serve as a reviewer, unforeseen circumstances prevent a reviewer from completing the review within the allotted time, the Associate Editor should be contacted immediately.

Conflicts of Interest

If a reviewer believes that there is a conflict of interest (financial or otherwise) for a manuscript, the reviewer should either seek clarification with the assigning Associate Editor or decline the invitation.  

 

A conflict of interest is any circumstance that raises the question either of bias in the review or when the reviewer’s personal interests compete with responsibilities to the engineering and scientific community, the readers and ASME.  Examples of cases which could cause conflict of interest include:

·        The reviewer has an ownership interest in a company that stands to benefit from the results reported in the manuscript.

·        The reviewer is currently collaborating with one of the authors or has recently collaborated with the author.

·        The reviewer feels that it is not possible to provide an impartial and objective review free of personal or professional bias.

Peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.  The ASME Ethical Obligations of Reviewers is found at https://journaltool.asme.org/Help/AuthorHelp/WebHelp/JournalsHelp.htm#Guidelines/Ethical_Standards.htm.

 

Timeline

ASME Transaction Journals are committed to provide timely editorial decisions. Reviewers are asked to complete review of the manuscript within 3 week.

 

Table 1.  Timeline for reviewers

 

Days from request

Task

0-3

Accept assignment

3-21

Review of manuscript submitted

 

Guidelines for a Review

A good approach to begin a review is to read the manuscript carefully from beginning to end before completing the review.  This approach gives an overall sense of the scope and novelty of the work. The ASME Guide to Authors (https://journaltool.asme.org/Help/AuthorHelp/WebHelp/JournalsHelp.htm) provides additional support for reviewers. Provide a summary statement of your findings followed by enumerated detailed comments.  It is helpful to divide the comments into two categories: suggestions to the authors, and criticisms which in your opinion must be addressed in a revised manuscript. Highlight the good points about the work as well as the weaker points. All comments to the authors should be stated in a neutral, constructive and helpful way. Include your judgment of originality and scientific importance, adequacy of experimental and/or numerical design and methods, quality of the data and its interpretation, including figures, adequacy and length of the title, abstract, review of the relevant literature and conclusions. If possible, make specific recommendations for strengthening the paper. Including recent citations missed by the author (not exclusively your own) may be helpful to the authors.

 

Reviewers are encouraged to provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based, including specific written comments that describe the arguments for or against publication.  Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors.  The Ethical Obligations of Reviewers (https://journaltool.asme.org/Help/AuthorHelp/WebHelp/JournalsHelp.htm#Guidelines/Ethical_Standards.htm) addresses potential plagiarism, falsification of data, or substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published manuscript or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

 

The Associate Editor may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where there is disagreement among reviewers or where authors believe that reviewers have misunderstood points of fact.  However, Associate Editors need not send a resubmitted manuscript back to the reviewers if the quality of the revisions can be adequately evaluated by the Associate Editor without additional input.

 

Confidentiality

Manuscripts are reviewed with respect for the authors’ and reviewers' confidentiality.

 

As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers agree to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential. If advice is sought from colleagues, the reviewer should ensure their confidentiality is maintained as well.  Names of colleagues who aid in the review of an articles should be provided to the Associate Editor in a confidential note.

 

Comments and ratings of the reviewer are transmitted to the authors; however, ASME reserves the right to remove offensive language or to remove comments. ASME does not release reviewers' identities to authors.  Reviewers are discouraged from revealing their identities in their review and this information may be deleted.