Customers reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity and quality of any service. The customer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the the website users and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. customers reviewers play a central and critical part in the customer review process, but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. SimpeSolutions has an obligation to provide transparent policies for customer review, and reviewers have an obligation to post reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the website and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review.
Being a reviewer
Professional responsibility: the customer is benefited by the customer reviews done by others. in turn, they should consider becoming reviewers as a part of their social responsibilities.
before writing a customer review , we expect the reviewer to have personally availed the services listed with our website. Reviewers should provide Website with their name and verifiable and accurate email address.
Competing interests: Ensure you don,t have any potential competing, or conflicting, interests, for writing a customers review. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same organisation/company which has listed the service with us, you should not agree to review. In addition, you should not write a customers review.
Timeliness: It is appropriate for a customer to write a review just after he/she has availed the listed service at our website. writing a review based on the past memory or after a long time is not quite advisable.
Writing a Customers Review
Explain your experience
Reasons for good or bad experience
what do you expect from service providers.
photograph/pictures to substantiate your review.
Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the customer review process. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a listed service.
Bias and competing interests: It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the listing owner, location of service provider or facility or by commercial considerations.
Suspicion of ethics violations: If you come across any irregularities with respect to services offered by any listed service provider, do let us know about it. For example, you may have witnessed that irregularities occurred during service delivery to some other client. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the admin directly and do not attempt to post a negative review about the listed service. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the admin, but not to personally investigate further unless the admin asks for additional information or advice.
Transferability of customer review: Publishers may have policies related to transferring peer reviews to other journals in the publisher’s portfolio (sometimes referred to as portable or cascading peer review). Reviewers may be asked to give permission for the transfer of their reviews if that is journal policy. If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes. (See discussion2 with Pete Binfield and Elizabeth Moylan highlighting some of the issues surrounding portable peer review).
Preparing a report
Format: Follow journals’ instructions for writing and posting the review. If a particular format or scoring rubric is required, use the tools supplied by the journal. Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations (e.g. see COPE Case 08-13: Personal remarks within a post-publication literature forum).
Appropriate feedback: Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Most journals allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. The journal may also ask for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review. If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.
Language and style: Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. In addition, be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.
Suggestions for further work: It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigour of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
Accountability: Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission from the journal to involve another person. Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript. Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author. If you are the editor handling a manuscript and decide to provide a review of that manuscript yourself (perhaps if another reviewer could not return a report), do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous additional reviewer.
What to consider after peer review
If possible, try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts you have reviewed previously. It is helpful to respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to your review and to provide the information required. Similarly, contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after you have submitted your review that might affect your original feedback and recommendations. Continue to respect the confidential nature of the review process and do not reveal details of the manuscript after peer review unless you have permission from the author and the journal (e.g. see COPE Case 13- 05: Online posting of confidential draft by peer reviewer). See the COPE discussion document Who “owns” peer reviews?2 for a fuller discussion of the issues.