ADADA Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions:

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor.

Promptness:

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be invited.

Right of Refusal:

Refusals to review a manuscript are from time to time necessary. For example, a Reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript if there is a potential conflict of interest.

ADADA has a double-blind review process. Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts where they have provided written comments on the manuscript or an earlier version to the Author. If a Reviewer knows the identity of an Author or Co-Author, this would typically be grounds for a refusal to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing, doing, or saying anything that could identify them to an Author.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest:

ADADA has a double-blind review process. Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts where they have provided written comments on the manuscript or an earlier version to the Author. If a Reviewer knows the identity of an Author or Co-Author, this would typically be grounds for a refusal to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid leaking any information that could identify them to an Author.

Unbiased:

Disclosure and conflicts of interest. Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the ADADA Editorial Committee members to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal biases in their comments and judgments.

Confidentiality:

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the ADADA Chief Editorial Committee (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the ADADA Editorial Committee member, nor should they discuss any information from the manuscript without permission. If Reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the ADADA Editorial Committee member in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.

Accuracy:

In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the Author(s), Reviewers should always keep in mind that their review captures their scholarly judgment about the manuscript. Reviewers should be honest with the Author in terms of their concerns about the manuscript. Reviewers should explain and support their scholarly judgments adequately; that is, they should provide sufficient detail to the Author to justify their recommendation to the ADADA Editorial Committee member. Reviews should not be "two-faced," providing overly trusted reviews to the Author but very negative reviews in private to the ADADA Editorial Committee member.

Timeliness:

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the Reviewer should contact the ADADA Editorial Committee member as soon as possible to determine whether a more extended period or a new Reviewer should be chosen.

Reviewers should also read and follow the ADADA Guidelines for Reviewers when completing reviews for the journal.