In asking the faculty member to review this manuscript, the editor has made the assumption that he is an expert in the area, presumably based on his past publication record. In turn, the faculty member needs to ensure that this assumption is justified. The review process involves not only the editor and the reviewer(s), but the author(s) as well. The faculty member needs to determine whether he can provide the author(s) and editor with the quality of review appropriate for this journal.

Based on his past work in the field, the faculty member may feel qualified to serve as a reviewer. He can carry out a computer-based search to locate key articles that have been published in the field since his leave and read through them prior to reviewing the manuscript. Since he considers the manuscript to be somewhat peripheral to his own area of expertise, he can indicate to the editor his particular focus in the review. In doing so, he would be acknowledging his own limits in performing the review. However, given his particular situation, the faculty member may elect to return the manuscript without review. If he wishes to remain on the editor's list of potential reviewers, he might consider a brief explanation and a request that he be considered for future reviews, perhaps after six months. Even if he does not want to remain as a potential reviewer for this journal, he should indicate the reason for returning the manuscript without review. If possible, he should consider providing the names of individuals that the editor might consider in his place.