to submit in writing objective feedback about the work’s academic merits and scientific value, along with grounds for the reviewer’s opinion; to determine the work’s scientific value and originality, and offer ways in which it may be improved; this is to be done so as to ensure that articles receiving positive assessments are of a high scientific level;
to submit the review as soon as possible, without exceeding a period of one month, or as per a set agreement with the editorial board;
to maintain confidentiality of the review process by not sharing or discussing the work or review with any third parties, and not revealing any information provided in the document under review without having first received permission to do so from the editors;
to adhere to peer-reviewing ethical procedures;
to give advance notice to the editor if there are any possible personal or financial conflicts of interest (see the sections Ethical principles and Conflict of interests); to refuse to review a work in each instance where there may be a potential conflict;
to identify any ethical questions, for example, an obvious likeness of the manuscript under review to any other work published elsewhere;
to draw attention to the fact of a relevant work by other scientists not having been cited.