Peer reviewers provide essential benefits to authors, including:

• Enhancing scientific rigor by identifying methodological weaknesses and suggesting improvements.
• Broadening the literature context, often recommending relevant studies that authors may have missed, thus enriching the theoretical framework.
• Improving clarity and quality of presentation, making research more accessible and impactful.
• Offering diverse perspectives, which is particularly valuable in fields like sexual health where evidence is multidisciplinary and culturally sensitive.
• Constructive reviewer feedback ultimately strengthens the validity and relevance of the research, supporting better evidence-based practice.

Encouraging open, respectful dialogue between authors and reviewers helps maximize these benefits

Thank you, Zein Al-Abideen Douba , for summarizing the benefits that reviewers provide. The challenge comes with the second point. Sometimes, reviewers suggest their own studies, which some authors do not appreciate. Do you have any experience or thoughts on this?

Thank you for raising this important point. Indeed, when reviewers suggest their own studies, it can raise concerns about bias or self-promotion—especially if the relevance is not clearly justified.

In my experience, the key lies in the scientific relevance and added value of the recommended citations. If the reviewer’s work contributes meaningfully to the manuscript—by filling a theoretical gap, reinforcing methodology, or offering diverse perspectives—then such suggestions can be beneficial and even necessary.

This is particularly important in sexual health research, where evidence is often interdisciplinary and culturally sensitive. In this field, reviewers should be especially mindful to avoid any perceived coercion or overemphasis on their own work, and instead aim to support a plurality of voices and global perspectives.

Ultimately, authors should feel empowered to assess each suggestion critically, and editors play a crucial role in ensuring that the review process remains transparent, respectful, and free of conflicts of interest. Promoting open dialogue and ethical review practices is key to advancing credible, inclusive research in this area

Exactly my point-any suggestions for improving the literature should clearly inform authors that literature recommendations are not a mandatory condition for the paper's acceptance.

Peer reviewers help authors by identifying errors, suggesting literature and methodological fixes, improving clarity and rigor, pointing out alternative interpretations, and sometimes strengthening argumentation and robustness tests; constructive peer review raises paper quality, increases credibility, and can speed acceptance and impact (though reviewer quality varies).

Thank you Chuck A Arize .But please, do you think it's ethically correct for reviewers to recommend their own work, for example, as a way of reinforcing some of the services you have summarised?