Peer reviewers of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (IJCEO) are entrusted with critical responsibilities in the evaluation of manuscripts. Their feedback directly shapes editorial decisions and contributes to the quality, rigor, and integrity of the journal’s published content. This policy outlines the ethical, professional, and procedural responsibilities of IJCEO reviewers.

Core Responsibilities

• Provide objective, balanced, and constructive evaluations of manuscripts.
• Respect confidentiality and refrain from sharing or using unpublished data.
• Disclose conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if bias is likely.
• Evaluate manuscripts within agreed timelines to support timely publication.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not discuss submissions with colleagues, use unpublished data for personal advantage, or disclose findings before publication.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must identify and disclose any conflicts that could bias their evaluation, such as financial ties, collaborations, or personal relationships with authors. If a conflict exists, they must decline the review.

Quality of Reviews

1. Comments should be evidence-based, respectful, and constructive.
2. Feedback should focus on improving clarity, accuracy, and rigor.
3. Criticism of authors should be avoided; reviewers should critique the work, not the individuals.

Ethical Oversight

• Alert editors to suspected plagiarism, fabrication, or unethical research practices.
• Encourage compliance with ethical standards for human and animal studies.
• Recommend retraction or correction if major ethical issues are discovered post-publication.

Timeliness

Reviewers must adhere to deadlines, typically 2–3 weeks. If unable to complete a review on time, they should notify the editorial office immediately.

Reviewer Conduct

• Maintain professionalism in tone and feedback.
• Refrain from discriminatory or biased language.
• Support diversity and inclusivity in academic publishing.

Use of AI in Reviewing

Reviewers must not rely solely on artificial intelligence to assess manuscripts. AI tools may assist in language review but cannot substitute expert judgment, accountability, or ethical responsibility.

Collaboration with Editors

Reviewers should maintain open communication with editors, clarifying uncertainties and providing feedback on manuscript quality, relevance, and ethical compliance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I share a manuscript with a colleague for input?

No. Sharing requires prior permission from the editor, and confidentiality must be maintained.

What should I do if I suspect data manipulation?

Report concerns confidentially to the editor with supporting evidence.

Can I decline a review after accepting?

Yes, but notify the editor immediately so an alternative reviewer can be assigned.