Reviewer Guidelines

E-ISSN: 2640-2874 ยท Clear expectations for reviewers to ensure integrity and rigor

Introduction

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and trustworthiness of scientific literature. At APCR, reviewers are expected to uphold professional and ethical standards that align with international best practices in peer review. These guidelines provide a roadmap to conduct fair, constructive, and timely reviews.

General Principles

  • Provide an unbiased, evidence-based assessment of the manuscript.
  • Preserve confidentiality at all stages of the review process.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest immediately.
  • Focus feedback on the work, not the author(s).
  • Commit to timeliness and reliability in meeting review deadlines.

Steps in Reviewing

  1. Acceptance of Invitation: Accept only if you can provide an informed, timely review and are free of conflicts of interest.
  2. Initial Reading: Skim the manuscript to assess scope, originality, and clarity.
  3. Detailed Evaluation: Assess research design, methodology, data presentation, and conclusions.
  4. Feedback Drafting: Write comments to the authors and confidential notes to the editor.
  5. Submission: Upload the review in the journal system by the deadline.

Content to Address in Reviews

  • Clarity of research question and objectives.
  • Appropriateness of methodology and study design.
  • Quality and reliability of data analysis.
  • Interpretation of results in context of existing literature.
  • Ethical considerations such as consent and data integrity.
  • Language, structure, and overall presentation.

Confidentiality and Conflicts

All materials reviewed are confidential. Reviewers must not share or use unpublished content. If a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest, they should decline the review or inform the editor immediately.

Providing Constructive Feedback

Feedback should aim to improve the manuscript, regardless of the recommendation. Effective feedback is:

  • Specific: Cite sections or data directly when commenting.
  • Evidence-based: Ground critiques in scholarly reasoning.
  • Balanced: Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses.
  • Respectful: Use professional, encouraging language.

Reviewer Ethics

  • Avoid prejudice or personal bias.
  • Do not contact authors directly.
  • Refrain from using unpublished data for personal benefit.
  • Ensure feedback is free from discriminatory remarks.

Timeliness

Timely reviews are critical to efficient publication. If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers must notify the editor promptly to allow reassignment.

Recommendations

At the end of the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

  • Accept: Manuscript is suitable with minimal or no revisions.
  • Minor Revision: Suitable after addressing small issues.
  • Major Revision: Substantial improvements required before reconsideration.
  • Reject: Manuscript does not meet quality or ethical standards.

Recognition and Development

Reviewers are acknowledged for their service and may request certificates. APCR encourages reviewers to view peer review as professional development, improving their critical analysis and scholarly communication skills.

Support and Contact

For questions about review guidelines or technical assistance, please contact the editorial office:

[email protected]