| Itema |  | #b |
Peer reviewers should be… |  |  |  |
 Proficient experts in their field | 1 | Be expert in the subject area/matter/field and/or be familiar with/trained in research methods and statistics | 70 |
2 | Be actively involved in research and have experience of conducting research and publishing scientific papers | 15 | |
3 | Be familiar with reporting guidelines | 5 | |
 Dutiful/altruistic towards the scientific community | 4 | Consider peer reviewing to be a responsibility, duty and obligation to the field and to the scientific community | 26 |
5 | Consider the act of peer reviewing as an honour and a privilege | 8 | |
6 | Indicate willingness to re-review the manuscript | 7 | |
7 | Be aware of one’s role, responsibilities and rights as a peer reviewer | 4 | |
8 | Perform reviewing task altruistically/gratis | 2 | |
9 | End one’s appointment as reviewer to create opportunity for others | 1 | |
10 | Act regularly as peer reviewer | 1 | |
 Familiar with journal | 11 | Be familiar with journal’s mission, review process, review criteria, guidelines (i.e. both author and reviewer guidelines) and forms prior to starting the review | 39 |
12 | Guide the substance and direction of a journal | 1 | |
 Unbiased and ethical professionals | 13 | Declare/avoid potential or actual conflict of interest | 66 |
14 | Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript, avoiding disclosure/discussion with others | 52 | |
15 | Be fair: evaluate manuscript in a fair manner | 39 | |
16 | Be objective: objectively judge all aspects of the manuscript | 36 | |
17 | Be unbiased in their assessment: peer reviewers should have an unbiased attitude towards an author’s gender, previous work, institution and nationality | 32 | |
18 | Review ethically: they should not use the obtained information in any way | 17 | |
19 | Be honest/frank | 13 | |
20 | Maintain integrity of the peer review process and not communicate with authors during the review process | 12 | |
21 | Inform editor if a colleague will help or has helped with review | 11 | |
22 | Review ethically: they should not copy and plagiarise | 6 | |
23 | Be aware of their own biases: peer reviewers should recognise their potential biases and hold them in check | 6 | |
24 | Upon completing the review, manuscript, illustrations and tables should be destroyed | 5 | |
25 | Review ethically: in general terms, peer reviewers are expected to undertake task in an ethical and diligent manner | 4 | |
26 | Be familiar with fundamental issues of publication integrity | 4 | |
27 | Decline review request if these cannot be performed in an unbiased manner | 4 | |
28 | Review ethically: they should not ask for their own articles to be cited | 4 | |
29 | Review ethically: they should not delay publications purposefully | 4 | |
30 | Be transparent and perform review in a transparent manner | 2 | |
 Self-critical professionals | 31 | Prior to accepting review request, determine whether the manuscript is within one’s area of expertise (only review manuscripts in one’s own field of expertise) | 35 |
32 | Be aware of own limitations: recognise and communicate them to the editors. If needed, recommend review by an expert (e.g. statistician) | 22 | |
33 | Be innovative and open to new ideas | 13 | |
34 | Peer reviewers should consider reviewing as a learning exercise and evaluate one’s own performance as a reviewer, i.e. read other peer reviewers’ reviews and thereby improve their own understanding of the topic and/or decision reached | 8 | |
 Reliable professionals | 35 | Timeliness: meet journal deadline | 81 |
36 | Consider one’s time availability prior to accepting review request | 36 | |
37 | Be willing to devote sufficient time and attention to the review task | 23 | |
38 | Respond to review requests in a timely manner | 21 | |
39 | Inform the editor as soon as possible if proposed deadline to be exceeded | 12 | |
40 | Immediately communicate to journal when cannot perform review | 9 | |
41 | Suggest other reviewers if unable to review | 7 | |
 Skilled critics | 42 | Provide constructive criticism | 87 |
43 | Improve manuscript | 84 | |
44 | Be thorough/comprehensive/detailed/accurate | 35 | |
45 | Be critical/sceptical: evaluate a manuscript in a critical manner | 27 | |
46 | Be specific: provide authors with specific guidance on how to improve their manuscript | 26 | |
47 | Support comments with evidence: reviewers should document their comments and substantiate their points by referring to appropriate references and resources | 20 | |
48 | Be clear: clearly explain concerns | 14 | |
49 | Provide relevant comments: offer meaningful and reasonable comments that can be addressed | 12 | |
50 | Be consistent with comments to authors and editors: comments provided to the authors should be in line with confidential comments provided to editor in order to facilitate editors’ decision-making, ensure consistency and avoid miscommunication. | 11 | |
51 | Be systematic and methodological | 11 | |
52 | Be balanced: provide a balanced critique | 9 | |
53 | Be logical: provide logical arguments | 5 | |
54 | Be concise/incisive | 5 | |
55 | Evaluate manuscripts in a consistent manner | 4 | |
56 | Have intuitive capacity to detect faults and recognise quality | 2 | |
 Respectful communicators | 57 | Be polite/courteous/respectful in the communication with authors | 41 |
58 | ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’: treat others as we expect to be treated | 22 | |
59 | Be positive: peer reviews should be written in a positive attitude and offer praise for work well done | 13 | |
60 | Be nice/kind/considerate | 12 | |
61 | Be helpful: provide helpful comments | 12 | |
62 | Be collegial: treat each manuscript as if it had been written by a valued colleague | 8 | |
 Gatekeepers | 63 | Maintain and improve manuscript quality and scientific rigour | 15 |
64 | Weed out unsuitable manuscripts that are not scientifically valid | 11 | |
 Educators | 65 | Educate and mentor authors: provide a learning opportunity | 15 |
66 | Encourage authors: peer reviewers should encourage authors to improve manuscript | 11 | |
 Advocates for author/editor/reader | 67 | Be an advocate for the editor | 6 |
68 | Be an advocate for the author | 6 | |
69 | Be an advocate to readers | 2 | |
 Advisors to editors | 70 | Advise editors on the merits of manuscripts | 40 |
71 | Provide confidential comments to editor | 32 | |
Peer reviewers should not… | 72 | Be decision makers: they should acknowledge that the final decision on the publication of a manuscript rests with the editor | 22 |
73 | Be copy editors (i.e. offer editorial comments about grammar and spelling) | 21 | |
74 | Ask for unreasonable or pivotal change | 11 | |
75 | Be overtly critical or too detailed: peer reviewers should not be generous and should not ‘nit-pick’ or overwhelm the authors | 9 | |
76 | Add additional requests in subsequent reviews that are not related to the original revisions | 2 |