We are committed to upholding the integrity of the work we publish. PBR takes issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of our journals against malpractice.Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software. Where an article is found to have plagiarised other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article (removing it from the journal); taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author’s institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; banning the author from publication in the journal in question or appropriate legal action.

We recommend that if reviewers suspect any of the following problems with any article that they are reviewing that they contact the journal editor to discuss the situation without delay. Reviewers should keep all information about such matters confidential and not discuss them with colleagues other than the journal editor.

1. . If you suspect that the paper has been either published or submitted to another journal.
2. . If you suspect that the paper is duplicating the work of others.
3. . If you suspect that there might be problems with the ethics of the research conducted.
4. . If you suspect that there might be an undeclared conflict of interest attached to the paper (editors might have more information about this than you do so it is best to check).

We recommend that reviewers should think carefully about their own potential conflicts of interest relating to the paper before undertaking the review. They should also notify the editor if they become aware of the identity of the author during blind peer review. Additionally, reviewers should be careful not to make judgements about the paper based on personal, financial, intellectual biases or any other considerations than the quality of the research and written presentation of the paper.

It is widely accepted that Peer Review is the most valid form of research evaluation and it is a cornerstone in the process of bringing academic research to publication in the following ways:

1. . Evaluation - Peer review is an effective form of research evaluation to help select the highest quality articles for publication.
2. . Integrity - Peer review ensures the integrity of the publishing process and the scholarly record. Reviewers are independent of journal publications and the research being conducted.
3. . Quality - The filtering process and revision advice improve the quality of the final research article as well as offering the author new insights into their research methods and the results that they have compiled. Peer review gives authors access to the opinions of experts in the field who can provide support and insight.

Double blind peer review - names are hidden from both reviewers and the authors.

Referees are sent invitations to review papers by journal editors. These requests are made via email. If you are asked to provide a review, in order to avoid delays, we would be grateful if you could let us know as soon as possible if you are unable to complete it at the time or if a problem arises after the invitation has been accepted. Suggestions for alternative reviewers are always gratefully received!

Below we present some advice and guidance about how to conduct a review and put together a reviewer report that will be effective and beneficial to authors:

Timeliness - We understand that our reviewers are busy so it won’t always be possible for invitations to be accepted. Please let us know as soon as possible if they need to refuse a review or if a problem arises after the invitation has been accepted. Most journal editors are grateful to receive suggestions about someone else that might be suitable to do the review if you have to decline the invitation.
Conflict of Interest - it is important to highlight to the journal editor any conflict of interest that you feel might occur if you review the paper. Please do so as discretely and as quickly as possible.
Discussion - it is important to discuss with the journal editor any concerns that you have about the paper or their specific requirements for review if you are being invited to review for the first time. Editors are usually open to discussing their expectations and journal requirements with reviewers.
Ethics - Refer ethics and responsibility related to peer review.

These guidelines include a list of questions and will usually offer the reviewer the chance to make general comments.

1. . Read the paper very carefully.
2. . Relevance to the publication (most editors will reject at submission those articles that do not match the aims and scope of the journal, but it is worth considering this as you read the paper).
3. . Significance of the research within the field.
4. . Originality of the work conducted. It is also important to consider whether the author has ever published a substantially similar paper elsewhere (if you suspect the work may not be original, please view our ethics page for information about how to deal with a variety of situations).
5. . The methodology employed during the research.

1. . Technical accuracy.

1. . Accuracy of references.

1. . Structure of the paper overall, communication of main points and flow of argument.
2. . Quality of written language and structure of the article.
3. . Effectiveness of the article abstract and introduction (some journals will request that authors write structured abstracts, so it may be useful to consult other published papers or the manuscript submission guidelines to help you judge the effectiveness of this section of the paper).
4. . Whether the argument is clear and logical and the conclusions presented are supported by the results or evidence presented.
5. . Whether the title of the article is suitable or effective.

1. . Whether the abstract is a good summary of the article.
2. . Whether the work meets with the article types accepted by the journal.
3. . The accessibility of the paper to a broad readership.

1. . Whether the paper is internally consistent.

1. . Be as objective as possible in your comments and criticisms and avoid making negative comments about work referenced in the article.
2. . Be specific and as constructive as possible in your criticism. Be clear about what needs to be added or revised.
3. . If relevant, make suggestions about additional literature that the author might read to enrich or improve their arguments.
4. . You should ensure that you are clear which of your comments you are happy for the author to see and which are meant specifically for the journal editor in order to avoid confusion or bad feeling.
5. . While peer reviewers should feel free to make general comments on written quality and make suggestions about how articles might be improved by broadening reading of other literature, it is not the job of the peer reviewer to rewrite articles or suggest detailed changes to wording.

1. . Most journals will ask you to recommend whether a paper should be accepted, rejected or revised (major or minor revisions).
2. . Some journals will ask you to look over the changes made to a paper after peer review to ensure that improvements have been adequately made.

Most important - keep all activity, content and comments relating to the paper confidential.

Sample reviewers report