Reviewer’s responsibilities

All manuscripts that completed the first phase of the evaluation process by the Editor/Editorial Direction are addressed to the double-blind peer review process.
The Reviewers are experts, academics, an others recognized as specialist in the subject areas included within the Journal’s/article’s scope, not part of the Journal’s Editorial Direction and Advisory Board. They are responsible for:
  1. Informing about their effective affinity with the article content and their availability to carry out the review within the defined period.
  2. Promplty refusing the revision of a manuscript that conflicts with their interests or links to the authors or to institutions related to the paper.
  3. Informing the Editor/Editorial Direction about any copyright violation, infraction, as well as plagiarism of the author.
  4. Ensuring that the received manuscript, as well as its ideas and privileged information, are handled as a confidential document and are not used for personal advantage, regardless their acceptance/declination to review it.
  5. Assisting the editor and the editorial board to produce reliable editorial decisions.
  6. Assisting the authors the editor/editorial board and the authors, in the improvement of the manuscript, when needed.
  7. Knowing that the evaluation process is blind peer-review.
  8. Having knowledge of the PJMS editorial policy as follows:
    • Reviewers are entitled to declined to review a manuscript (due to conflict of interest, no identification with the contents, etc.).
    • Reviewers that accepted to review an article must:
      • Be objective and fair in their evaluation;
      • Substantiate undoubtedly, assertively and with supporting arguments their observations;
      • Fulfill the evaluation form (and mark it as: “Accepted in its current form”; “Accepted after some revision”; “Should not be published”;
      • State  all remarks unambiguously and with supporting evidences, in order to help authors to improve the paper.
      • Complete the review form (available at Portuguese-Journal-of-Military-Sciences_Reviewer-file.pdf (ium.pt));
    • Reviewers are entitled, when requested, to receive a formal document identifying their contribution.
    • Reviewers may be asked by the Editorial Board to re-evaluate the article.
    • Reviewers, when factually justified, may be rejected by the Editor/Editorial Board.
    • Considering the blind-review process, the identity of the reviewers in never revealed.
    • Reviewers are not paid.