Medical Ethics and Law Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences – International Association of Islamic Bioethics – Institute for Bioethics and Health Law
Peer review is a fundamental mechanism for safeguarding the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of articles published in the Bioethics Journal. Reviewers act as scientific advisers to the Editor and are expected to conduct their assessments independently, objectively, confidentially, promptly, and with respect for authors. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor.
Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript and can complete the review within the specified timeframe. If the manuscript falls substantially outside the reviewer’s expertise, or if a timely and independent assessment cannot be provided, the reviewer should promptly decline the invitation.
Before accepting a review, reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, academic, institutional, intellectual, or personal relationship that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their assessment. Where such a competing interest may compromise impartiality, the reviewer should recuse themselves.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review to advance their own research, professional position, financial interests, or those of others.
Submitted manuscripts and all associated data, figures, supplementary files, and correspondence are confidential materials. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, reproduce, distribute, or make personal use of any unpublished material contained in a manuscript.
If assistance from a colleague or trainee is required, prior permission from the Editor must be obtained and the contributor must be appropriately acknowledged. The invited reviewer remains responsible for the integrity and content of the submitted review.
To protect manuscript confidentiality, reviewers must not upload manuscripts, unpublished data, figures, or substantial portions of confidential submissions to publicly accessible generative AI systems without prior authorization from the Journal.
Where AI-assisted tools are permitted, reviewers remain fully responsible for the scientific judgment, accuracy, completeness, and integrity of their review. Reviewers should also recognize that AI-generated outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased.
Reviewers should assess manuscripts with regard to originality and significance; relevance to the scope of bioethics; clarity of the research question or objective; appropriateness of methodology; quality of analysis; coherence of argumentation; consistency between results and conclusions; adequacy and currency of references; clarity of presentation; and the manuscript’s contribution to knowledge.
For interdisciplinary bioethics manuscripts, particular attention should also be paid to the quality of ethical reasoning, conceptual clarity, distinction between empirical evidence and normative claims, engagement with relevant alternative perspectives, and whether conclusions are proportionate to the evidence and arguments presented.
Reviewers should consider whether appropriate ethical standards have been followed, including requirements relating to informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, research ethics approval, vulnerable populations, human or animal research, and competing interests.
Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, redundant publication, citation manipulation, authorship concerns, or other forms of research or publication misconduct should be reported confidentially to the Editor. Reviewers should not investigate allegations independently or contact authors directly concerning suspected misconduct.
Reviews should be clear, evidence-based, fair, constructive, professional, and respectful. Major concerns affecting the validity of the work should be distinguished from suggestions intended primarily to improve clarity or presentation.
Personal, hostile, defamatory, or derogatory comments are unacceptable. Reviewers should not request citation of their own or their associates’ publications merely to increase citation counts; suggested references must have a legitimate scholarly justification.
The reviewer’s role is to assess the quality and rigor of the work submitted, not to redesign the study or require authors to undertake an entirely new project. Additional analyses or investigations should be requested as essential revisions only when they are necessary to support the claims made in the manuscript.
Reviewers should not communicate directly with authors unless specifically authorized by the Editor. Questions, requests for clarification, and ethical concerns should be communicated through the Journal’s editorial system.
Reviewers should respond promptly to review invitations and submit their reports within the timeframe specified by the Journal. If circumstances prevent completion on time, the Editor should be informed as soon as possible. Deliberately delaying a review for competitive or personal advantage is unethical.
The reviewer’s final recommendation should be consistent with the concerns and reasoning presented in the review report. Reviewers serve in an advisory capacity; the final decision to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor and the Editorial Board.