Society for Neuroscience
Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communications
1998


Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication

2. Reviewers of Manuscripts

2.1. Thorough scientific review is in the interest of the scientific community.

2.2. A thorough review must include consideration of the ethical dimensions of a manuscript as well as its scientific merit.

2.3. All scientists are encouraged to participate if possible when asked to review a manuscript.

2.4. Anonymity of reviewers should be preserved unless otherwise stated in the guidelines for authors and for reviewers, or unless a reviewer requests disclosure.

2.5. Reviewers should be chosen for their high qualifications and objectivity regarding a particular manuscript.

2.6. Reviews should not contain harsh language or personal attacks.

2.7. Reviews should be prompt as well as thorough.

2.8. Reviewers must not use non-public information contained in a manuscript to advance their own research or financial interests.

2.9. Information contained in a manuscript under review is confidential and must not be shared with others. (Link)