Why reviewer responsibilities matter
AAAI publishes research and clinical scholarship related to asthma, allergy, immunology, and respiratory health. Decisions based on this literature can influence clinical practice, public health strategies, and patient safety. The reviewer’s responsibilities are therefore not “optional etiquette”—they are part of a quality and ethics system designed to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, transparently, and with respect for confidentiality.
AAAI’s legacy navigation includes a “Reviewer’s Responsibilities” page; however, the public-facing content on that legacy page is minimal. This updated page expands the responsibilities using AAAI’s own peer-review framework (double-blind; editor-led decisions) and internationally used reviewer-ethics guidance, so reviewers have clear, actionable expectations.
Responsibility snapshot
In plain terms: keep it confidential, declare conflicts, be objective, be constructive, respect timelines, and alert the editor to integrity concerns—without making personal accusations.
Responsibilities before accepting a review
The review process is strongest when the “yes” is informed and realistic. Before accepting, reviewers should evaluate three areas: expertise, availability, and independence (conflicts of interest).
Confirm appropriate expertise
You do not need to be an expert in every sub-component of a manuscript (e.g., both immunology assays and advanced biostatistics), but you should be able to competently assess the core question, design, and clinical meaning of the work. If part of the paper is outside your expertise, accept only if you can review the sections you understand and you clearly state your limits in the report.
Confirm you can meet the timeline
Timeliness is an ethical issue: delayed reviews delay the scientific record and affect authors’ careers and clinical relevance. If you cannot meet the requested timeline, decline quickly. If you can review but need additional days, propose a new deadline immediately so the editor can decide whether to extend or reassign.
Disclose conflicts of interest (COI) early
COPE’s reviewer guidance emphasizes that reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when conflicts compromise neutrality.
Conflicts can be financial, institutional, personal, or competitive. If in doubt, disclose: editors can determine whether the conflict is manageable.
| Recent collaboration or mentorship relationship | Decline or disclose to editor. Close professional ties can bias judgment (positively or negatively). |
|---|---|
| Same institution/department | Usually a reason to decline; at minimum disclose. Independence is essential to fair review. |
| Financial ties to products/interventions | Disclose and likely decline if the manuscript evaluates a related product/biologic/diagnostic. |
| Direct competitor / overlapping work | Decline. Access to unpublished ideas can create perceived or real misuse. |
Do not accept and “see later”
Accepting and then missing deadlines creates avoidable delays. A prompt decline is more helpful than a late review, because it allows editors to invite an alternative reviewer quickly.
Confidentiality and data protection
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. COPE’s ethical guidelines emphasize that reviewers should respect confidentiality and should not use information obtained during peer review for personal advantage or another’s advantage.
The Council of Science Editors (CSE) similarly notes that although reviews are confidential, reviewer comments should remain professional and capable of withstanding scrutiny.
What confidentiality requires in practice
Confidentiality is not just “don’t share the PDF.” It includes how you store files, how you ask for input, and what you do with notes after the review.
- No redistribution Do not forward manuscripts, figures, or supplementary files to anyone without editor permission.
- No public tools Do not paste manuscript text into public AI tools, public forums, or external systems that store or reuse content.
- No author contact Do not contact authors directly (this can break double-blind review and fairness).
- Secure storage Store files only on password-protected devices or secure institutional storage; avoid shared computers.
- Deletion When the review is complete, delete local copies and notes containing manuscript text unless the editor requests retention for an inquiry.
When you may involve a colleague or trainee
If you believe a colleague/trainee could help you evaluate a specialized element (e.g., an advanced statistical method), you must first obtain permission from the handling editor and ensure that the colleague also agrees to confidentiality and discloses conflicts. Many journals require explicit permission before sharing any manuscript content for consultation.
Objectivity, fairness, and professional conduct
Your review should be evidence-based and free from identity-based assumptions. Evaluate the work on its content—methods, reporting, and interpretation— rather than perceived prestige, geography, or writing style. PLOS’s reviewer ethics guidance highlights unbiased and objective reviewing and the need to recuse yourself when conflicts exist.
Standards of tone and professionalism
- Critique the manuscript, not the authors (“The methods section is incomplete” rather than “The authors are incompetent”).
- Use calm, neutral language—even when you recommend rejection.
- Avoid sarcasm, insults, or personal remarks.
- Write comments that could be shared publicly without embarrassment (a helpful self-check).
Respect intellectual independence
CSE guidance notes that reviewers should respect the intellectual independence of authors and that peer review is not a stage to demonstrate a reviewer’s ability to find flaws. Your goal is to help the editor make a decision and help the authors improve the work.
Bias guardrails (quick self-check)
Before submitting: ask yourself whether you would write the same comments if the authors were from a different institution, country, seniority level, or if the results were aligned with your preferred hypothesis. If not, revise for fairness.
Responsibilities for review quality: what a strong report includes
A high-quality review is structured, specific, and actionable. It helps editors understand the manuscript’s strengths and risks, and it helps authors improve clarity and reliability. AAAI’s Peer Review Policy describes reviewer input as expert opinion and advice that supports editorial decision-making.
Recommended structure for your report
| Brief summary (2–4 sentences) | State the question, design, and main findings in your own words to confirm understanding. |
|---|---|
| Major issues (numbered) | Validity risks, missing critical methods, inappropriate analysis, over-interpretation, ethics/consent gaps. |
| Minor issues (bullets) | Clarity, grammar, figure labeling, missing citations, small reporting corrections. |
| Confidential notes to editor | Integrity concerns (possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, figure manipulation), sensitive COI context, or anything inappropriate to send to authors. |
What to evaluate (core dimensions)
- Validity: Are methods described well enough to assess reliability and reproduce the logic?
- Clinical relevance: Does the work improve understanding, diagnosis, prevention, or management of asthma/allergy/immunologic conditions?
- Transparency: Are outcomes defined, statistics appropriate, and limitations acknowledged?
- Ethics: Is consent/ethics approval addressed where applicable? Is patient privacy protected?
- Originality: Does it add something new or meaningfully confirm/extend prior knowledge?
Common pitfalls to avoid
Avoid asking authors to add citations to your work unless genuinely essential and relevant; avoid requesting unnecessary new experiments that exceed the scope; and avoid vague statements (“Methods are bad”) without specifying what’s missing and why it matters.
Integrity vigilance: what to flag to the editor
Reviewers are not investigators, but you are often the first person to notice red flags. CSE guidance notes that reviewers should alert editors when they become aware of duplicate publication.
AAAI’s author guidance also indicates plagiarism detection is used on each manuscript and authors may be contacted when concerns are detected.
Examples of integrity concerns worth flagging
- Possible plagiarism or large overlap with previously published work.
- Duplicate publication / salami slicing (substantially the same study published in multiple places).
- Image irregularities (duplication, suspicious manipulation).
- Implausible data patterns or internal inconsistencies (e.g., totals that do not match, contradictory timelines).
- Missing ethics/consent statements for human/animal research, or privacy risks in clinical images.
How to communicate concerns responsibly
Use calm, observational language in confidential notes to the editor. Provide specific details (“Figure 2 appears identical to Figure 3 with different labels”; “Large overlap appears similar to [citation/link]”) rather than accusations. Editors and integrity teams determine next steps.
Responsibilities after submitting your review
Your responsibilities do not always end when you click “submit.” Re-review requests may come after revision, and editors may ask clarifying questions. Your follow-up should remain consistent with confidentiality and fairness.
If you are asked to re-review a revision
- Focus on whether major issues were addressed and whether the response letter is complete and specific.
- Confirm whether conclusions now match the evidence (and whether limitations were strengthened).
- Do not introduce entirely new “major” demands unless they reflect a genuine issue discovered because of the revision.
If you discover a conflict after accepting
Notify the editor immediately and request reassignment if needed. Late disclosure is still better than silence.
Frequently asked questions
What if I recognize the manuscript or suspect I know the authors?
Do not attempt to confirm identity or contact the authors. If this creates a conflict of interest or you believe neutrality is compromised, disclose to the editor and request reassignment.
Can I use AI tools to help write my review?
Avoid uploading or pasting manuscript text into public AI systems or external tools that store or reuse content. If you use local tools for grammar and clarity, keep content minimal, de-identified, and secure. Confidentiality remains your responsibility.
Should I correct grammar and language throughout the paper?
Focus on scientific validity and clarity. You may note recurring language issues and suggest professional language editing, but you are not expected to copyedit the manuscript line-by-line.
What should I do if I suspect plagiarism or duplicate publication?
Flag it in confidential notes to the editor with evidence-based observations. Reviewer guidance from CSE and COPE supports alerting editors about duplicate publication and maintaining confidentiality during ethical concerns.
What if I cannot finish on time after accepting?
Notify the editor as soon as possible. The editor may extend your deadline or reassign the review to avoid delaying the manuscript.
