The editor usually assigns appropriate reviewers who match with the scope of the content in a manuscript to get the best reviews possible. When invited to review, agree to review only if you have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in your assessment.

Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review.

In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

It is courteous to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time frame, even if you cannot undertake the review. If you agree to review, you are obliged to return a review within the proposed time frame. Always inform the editor promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfil your original agreement or if you require an extension.

You respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another's advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. You must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. You can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, without first obtaining permission from the editor. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the Journal's records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly, getting back to the Journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without the permission of the editor.

It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations.

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, let the Journal know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the Journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the Journal asks for additional information or advice.

Reviewers or editors should not upload the manuscript or any part of it into a Generative AI tool, as there is no guarantee of where materials are being sent, saved, or viewed, or how they may be used in the future and this may violate the authors’ confidentiality, proprietary and/or data privacy rights.

This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report and any other communication about the manuscript, such as the notification or decision letters, as they may also contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, they should not be uploaded into a Generative AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.

Generative AI should not be used to assist in the review, evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript.

Reviewing a scientific paper implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. The critical thinking and assessment required for peer-review are outside the scope of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions.

Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. Be specific in your critique and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

The confidential comment to the editor may be submitted. However, confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.

Make your recommendation to either accept, request revision, or reject congruent with the comments provided in the review. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see.

Linguistic soundness, such as grammar, spelling and syntax, is also critical to properly and clearly convey review comments and critiques to authors. Bear this in mind when preparing the review comments.

It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigor of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript and which will just strengthen or extend the work

Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission from the journal to involve another person. Do not use generative AI tools to prepare the report.

Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors' work that is mentioned in the manuscript.

Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your or your associate's work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate's work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.

Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review report or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

If you are the editor handling a manuscript and decide to provide a review of that manuscript yourself (perhaps if another reviewer could not return a report), do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous additional reviewer.