Anticipations throughout the peer-review (Double Blind Review) procedure (Also check https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)

Upon being asked to review
Peer reviewers ought to:

• reply without purposeful delay and within a fair time frame, particularly if they are unable to complete the review.
• Clearly state the areas in which they are qualified to examine the article, stating if they lack the necessary subject-matter expertise to complete the review or can only evaluate a portion of it.
• Only accept a manuscript for review if they are reasonably certain they can return a review within the suggested or mutually agreed time period, and notify the journal as soon as possible if they need an extension.
• disclose any potentially competing or conflicting interests (such as those that are personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious); if in doubt about whether anything qualifies as a relevant interest, they should consult the journal.
• adhere to journal policies about circumstances they deem to be incompatible with reviewing. If no advice is given, they should notify the journal if they: have a close personal relationship with any of the authors; they are or have been recently (e.g., within the last three years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or joint grant holders; they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there).
• Reexamine any manuscript they have already examined for another publication since it might have altered between submissions and because the journals might have different standards for acceptance and evaluation.
• Make sure that recommendations for substitute reviewers are made solely on the basis of suitability, unaffected by ulterior motives, or with the goal of ensuring that the paper receives a particular result (positive or negative).
· decline to accept a manuscript review if your only goal in accepting it is to see it and not to write a review.
• Refuse to evaluate if they are in any way connected to the work in the manuscript or its reporting; • Refuse to review if they believe they are not in a position to offer an impartial and fair assessment.
• If asked to review a manuscript that is extremely similar to one they are working on or that is being considered by another publication, they should decline.
• refuse to review if they have concerns about the peer-review model employed by the journal (for example, if it uses open review and gives the authors access to the names of the reviewers), as this could potentially impact their review or result in it being invalidated due to their failure to adhere to the journal's review policies.