Ethical aspect

The reviewer should only correctly assess the scientific novelty, reliability and quality of the material presented, and if there are problems with all this, then report it in the review.

The reviewer should only correctly assess the scientific novelty, degree of reliability and quality of the material presented, and if there are problems with all this, then report it in the review.

That doesn't answer my question. Novelty, authenticity, and quality are all clear, otherwise the title of the topic would be "professional aspect". The question is ethics.

You still haven't formulated this question in a clear and precise way. As I understand it, there is a certain ethical dilemma as to what the reviewer should do: either (1) or (2). These (1) and (2) should be voiced.

it doesn't make sense to send it for review if the reviewer doesn't know enough. That's why they sent it to you.

If he PLANS IT himself, but someone else has already WRITTEN IT, then it's the reviewer's problem, which he didn't do before.

Either evaluate what was submitted for review, or refuse to review it, because there is a conflict of interest. but it would be unethical to underestimate the rating of the work in the review.

By the way, yes, usually in the editorial offices of good journals they ask about a conflict of interest, and if there is one, then in this case the material does not get reviewed by interested people.

And yes, those who didn't have time were late.

it doesn't make sense to send it for review if the reviewer doesn't know enough. That's why they sent it to you.

If he PLANS IT himself, but someone else has already WRITTEN IT, then it's the reviewer's problem, which he didn't do before.

Either evaluate what was submitted for review, or refuse to review it, because there is a conflict of interest. but it would be unethical to underestimate the rating of the work in the review.

What came in was evaluated impartially. There was no direct conflict of interest. However, the reviewer did not fully disclose his knowledge to the author, partly because his own research is still ongoing.

This post was edited by barko - 31.08.2015 15: 53

Is the reviewer obliged to fully disclose their knowledge to the full extent of the author, whose work is being reviewed? Like, like an interrogation? Strange ethics, however.

This topic has already been discussed
The very first "case" in the starttopic list. Ezoksu - you must read the entire topic
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=91968

Well, in general, everything is simple - I had to write to the author that: sorry, but I can't do a review, well, I can't and that's it))
And it would be possible to write-oh, so we have common intersections, let's explore together, and thus move faster through the thorns to progress and knowledge ... But..

Is the reviewer obliged to fully disclose their knowledge to the full extent of the author, whose work is being reviewed? Like, like an interrogation? Strange ethics, though.

That was my question. I got the answers. Thank you all.