Reviewer Guidelines
1. Purpose and Scope
Oto Rhino Laryngologica Indonesiana (ORLI) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing scholarly work in otorhinolaryngology, ear, nose, throat, and head and neck surgery (ENT–HNS), including related clinical and scientific disciplines. Reviewers are invited to assess whether submitted manuscripts demonstrate scientific validity, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and clarity of presentation in accordance with the journal's Peer Review Process.
Peer reviewers play an important role in safeguarding the quality and integrity of scholarly publications by providing independent, fair, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts. These responsibilities are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which describe the ethical principles and professional standards expected of reviewers.
ORLI expects reviewers to provide clear, evidence-based recommendations that assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision and help authors improve the quality of their work. Reviewers should follow the principles of objectivity, confidentiality, impartiality, and constructive criticism described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
2. Peer-Review Model
ORLI applies a double-blind peer-review process in which reviewers and authors are not intentionally identified to one another during the review process, as described in the journal's official Peer Review Process. Reviewers must respect this arrangement and must not attempt to identify the authors or disclose their own identity in the review comments unless disclosure is authorized by the journal.
The journal's peer-review model, selection procedures, and review responsibilities should be clearly described to authors and reviewers, in line with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, which state that journals should explain their peer-review processes and relevant review policies.
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript and any supplementary materials supplied by the editorial office, and should communicate with the editor rather than contacting the authors directly unless the journal explicitly authorizes such contact. This expectation is set out in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
3. Reviewer Qualifications and Accepting an Invitation
Reviewers should accept an invitation only when their expertise and professional experience are appropriate for evaluating the manuscript's subject matter, research design, methodology, analysis, or clinical implications. If a manuscript includes topics outside their competence, reviewers should inform the editor promptly and may identify the aspects they are able to assess. This approach follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether they have sufficient time to complete a thorough assessment within the proposed or mutually agreed deadline. Reviewers who cannot undertake the review should decline promptly and, where appropriate, may suggest qualified alternative reviewers without attempting to influence the outcome of the editorial process. See the COPE guidance on reviewer responsibilities and timeliness.
Reviewers should decline an invitation when a personal, professional, financial, academic, or other competing interest could prevent them from providing a fair and independent assessment. COPE identifies recent institutional relationships, supervisory relationships, close collaborations, joint grant arrangements, and other relevant interests as circumstances that may require disclosure or declining the review, as described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
4. Confidentiality and Data Protection
All manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer forms, editorial correspondence, and other materials received during peer review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or discuss unpublished manuscript content with unauthorized individuals, in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, methods, data, or findings obtained through peer review for personal, professional, commercial, or research advantage before the information becomes publicly available through an authorized process. This requirement reflects COPE's guidance on confidentiality and the responsible handling of unpublished work in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers must not upload a confidential manuscript or its unpublished contents to external artificial intelligence tools, public repositories, or third-party services unless the journal has explicitly authorized the use and the proposed service complies with applicable confidentiality, privacy, and data-protection requirements. Reviewers should consult the editor if uncertain about whether a particular tool may be used. This policy applies COPE's principles of confidentiality and responsible peer-review conduct as described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers must not involve another person, including a student, trainee, colleague, or research assistant, in reviewing a manuscript without obtaining prior permission from the editor. Any authorized contribution to the review must be disclosed to the journal so that the contribution can be properly recorded, consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
5. Objectivity, Fairness, and Professional Conduct
Reviews must be objective, balanced, and supported by clear scientific reasoning. Reviewers should focus on the manuscript's content and avoid personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory remarks, or comments unrelated to the scholarly assessment. COPE specifically emphasizes constructive, unbiased criticism and states that personal criticism of authors is inappropriate in the COPE guidance on ethical editing and relationships with reviewers.
Reviewers must not allow the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, professional status, or other irrelevant personal characteristics to influence their evaluation. Assessments should be based on scientific merit and the evidence presented, as required by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should identify both the strengths and limitations of a manuscript and explain their concerns in a manner that authors can understand and address. Criticism should be specific, respectful, and accompanied by supporting reasoning or references where appropriate, in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
6. Scientific and Methodological Assessment
Reviewers should assess whether the research question is clearly stated, relevant to the journal's scope, and supported by an appropriate study design. They should consider whether the methods are described in sufficient detail to understand how the study was conducted and whether the conclusions are supported by the reported evidence. These assessments support ORLI's published requirement that reviewers evaluate scientific validity, methodological soundness, relevance, and clarity, as stated in the journal's Peer Review Process.
Reviewers should examine the appropriateness of participant selection, sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria, controls, outcome measures, statistical methods, and the interpretation of results where applicable. For clinical studies, reviewers should consider whether the design and analysis support the clinical conclusions and whether limitations, uncertainty, and potential sources of bias have been adequately acknowledged.
Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript accurately distinguishes observed results from interpretations, speculation, and clinical recommendations. Where conclusions are stronger than the evidence supports, reviewers should explain what needs to be clarified, qualified, or revised, following the principles of objective and constructive assessment in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should evaluate whether the literature cited is relevant, sufficiently current for the research question, and appropriately balanced. They should identify important omissions where relevant but must not demand citations to their own work or to particular publications unless those references genuinely improve the scientific accuracy or completeness of the manuscript. COPE's guidance on ethical peer review emphasizes impartiality and warns against allowing personal interests to affect review recommendations in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
7. Clinical Research and Research Ethics
For studies involving human participants, patient records, identifiable clinical information, or biological materials, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript provides appropriate information about research ethics approval, informed consent, and the protection of participant confidentiality, as applicable to the study design and relevant regulations. COPE's Core Practices, particularly Ethical Oversight, identify ethical oversight as an important element of responsible scholarly publishing.
For studies involving animals, reviewers should assess whether the authors provide appropriate information about ethical review, animal welfare, and compliance with applicable institutional and regulatory requirements. Any missing or unclear ethical information should be reported confidentially to the editor rather than treated as proof of misconduct without further assessment, consistent with the COPE Core Practices on Ethical Oversight and Allegations of Misconduct.
Reviewers should alert the editor to concerns about potentially unsafe clinical recommendations, inadequate reporting of adverse events, questionable consent procedures, or possible risks to patients and research participants. Such concerns should be communicated factually and confidentially so that the editor can determine whether additional information or expert assessment is required under the journal's policies and the COPE Core Practices.
8. Research Integrity and Suspected Misconduct
Reviewers should notify the editor if they identify credible concerns about plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential breaches of research integrity. Reviewers should describe the concern and provide relevant evidence where possible, without making unsupported allegations or attempting to conduct an independent investigation. COPE provides a framework for handling such concerns in its Core Practices on Allegations of Misconduct.
Reviewers should not contact authors, their institutions, employers, or other third parties to investigate suspected misconduct unless specifically authorized by the editor. The editor is responsible for assessing the concern and determining appropriate next steps in accordance with the journal's policies and relevant COPE guidance, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
If reviewers suspect that a manuscript contains serious ethical or scientific problems, they should communicate the concern promptly and confidentially through the journal's review system or directly to the editorial office. The journal should handle such allegations through a defined process, as recommended in the COPE Core Practices.
9. Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment of a manuscript. Such interests may be financial, personal, professional, institutional, intellectual, or related to academic competition, as described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should decline the assignment if a competing interest is likely to prevent a fair and independent review, or seek guidance from the editor when the situation is uncertain. COPE's guidance identifies current institutional relationships, recent supervisory relationships, close collaborations, and joint grant arrangements as examples that may create relevant conflicts, as detailed in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should not use their position to seek authorship, citations, access to data, professional advantage, or other personal benefits in exchange for a favorable assessment. The handling of competing interests should follow the journal's policies and the principles outlined in the COPE guidance on conflicts of interest and competing interests.
10. Use of References, Citations, and Intellectual Property
Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are necessary to correct factual inaccuracies, address significant omissions, or improve the scientific context of the manuscript. Any recommendation should be justified by its scholarly relevance and must not be used to inflate the reviewer's citation count or advance personal interests, consistent with the impartiality principles in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers must respect the intellectual property rights of authors and other researchers and must not appropriate unpublished text, data, methods, figures, or ideas obtained through peer review. This responsibility is addressed in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which prohibit the misuse of confidential information for personal advantage.
11. Preparing and Submitting the Review
Reviewers should provide a clear, structured, and evidence-based report that identifies the manuscript's major strengths, major concerns, and specific recommendations for improvement. The report should be sufficiently detailed to help the editor make a decision and enable the authors to respond constructively, following COPE's recommendations for objective and constructive peer review in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Where useful, reviewers should distinguish major issues affecting scientific validity, research ethics, or interpretation from minor issues involving language, formatting, terminology, or presentation. They should explain the reasoning behind significant criticisms and avoid vague statements that do not tell authors what needs to be addressed.
Reviewers should submit their reports through the journal's designated online review system and complete any required reviewer forms. ORLI's published Peer Review Process states that editorial and reviewer comments are communicated to authors for revision and that a point-by-point response is required.
Reviewers should communicate promptly with the editor if additional time is needed, if an unforeseen conflict emerges, or if they discover that they cannot complete the assignment. Timely communication is consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
12. Editorial Recommendations
Reviewers should provide a recommendation consistent with their assessment and the options available in ORLI's review system. Depending on the journal's available decision categories, recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection; the editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.
A recommendation must be supported by the reviewer's scientific assessment rather than personal preferences, conflicts, or external pressure. COPE emphasizes that peer review should be objective and constructive and that reviewers should communicate their views clearly with supporting arguments, as stated in the COPE guidance on ethical editing and reviewer relationships.
Reviewers should not regard their recommendation as a final decision or communicate an acceptance or rejection directly to the authors. ORLI's Peer Review Process specifies that the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision after considering reviewer feedback and the revised manuscript.
13. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts
When invited to review a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the major comments raised during the previous review round and whether the revisions have improved the manuscript's scientific quality and clarity. Reviewers should evaluate the revised text and the authors' point-by-point response fairly, rather than requiring agreement with every suggestion when the authors provide a scientifically sound explanation.
If important concerns remain unresolved, reviewers should explain why further revision is necessary and identify the specific evidence or changes needed. Their assessment should remain objective, constructive, and consistent with the principles in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
14. Recognition, Accountability, and Reviewer Conduct
Reviewers should provide an honest assessment and disclose any substantial assistance received in preparing a review when such assistance has been authorized by the editor. Any person who contributes to a review should be identified in accordance with the journal's procedures and the confidentiality requirements described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers must not fabricate observations, misrepresent the contents of a manuscript, disclose confidential information, or intentionally delay a review to disadvantage authors or competing researchers. These expectations follow COPE's principles of confidentiality, integrity, fairness, and responsible reviewer conduct in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
15. Complaints and Concerns About the Review Process
Reviewers who have concerns about an editorial decision, the conduct of another reviewer, possible breaches of confidentiality, or a potential conflict involving the editorial team should communicate those concerns to the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editorial contact. The journal should handle complaints and disputes fairly and transparently, consistent with the COPE Core Practices.
Reviewers should not use public forums or unauthorized communications to disclose confidential manuscript details or attempt to influence an editorial decision. Any concern should be raised through an appropriate channel that preserves confidentiality and allows the journal to assess the matter fairly.
16. Final Principles
By accepting an invitation to review for ORLI, reviewers agree to conduct the review professionally, objectively, confidentially, and within the agreed timeframe. They are expected to respect the journal's double-blind review process, disclose competing interests, protect unpublished information, and provide constructive feedback that supports the integrity of scientific publishing.
These guidelines are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices. Reviewers should consult these resources for further guidance on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, research integrity, peer-review procedures, and ethical responsibilities.
