Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are being recognized for your eminence in a particular area of research but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the journal and scientific community. The purpose of this article is to define how best to peer review an article. Proper reviewer conduct is essential for making the peer review process valuable and the journal trustworthy.
Peer Review acts as a filter by ensuring only good research is published. It helps to determine validity, significance and originality of the articles and helps the authors to make the paper better. Not only does it help the author to improve his work but it also helps the reviewer in the following ways:
A reviewer should provide a critique that is positive, critical yet objective, balanced, contains no personally offensive comments, and is returned promptly. When specific criticisms are made, the reviewer should indicate precisely what the problems are and how they may be overcome. If the reviewer disputes a point made by the authors, he/she should provide explicit justification for his/her argument (e.g., literature citations). A reviewer also has a responsibility to familiarize him/herself with all aspects of the manuscript unless directed by the editor to focus on a specific area. This may entail reading previous, related articles from the authors or other papers in the field. It is fair to assume that the authors of the submitted manuscript are passionate about their work and that they have made a legitimate effort to perform and interpret their experiments carefully.
The review must be performed in a friendly atmosphere and with a humble mind. Criteria that can be followed for the evaluation of the research work can be downloaded from this link