Reviewer Guidelines

Ensuring Fairness, Quality, and Integrity in Peer Review
Reviewers for the Journal of Advanced Pediatrics and Child Health (JAPCH) play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and trustworthiness of published pediatric research. These guidelines outline reviewer responsibilities, ethics, and evaluation standards.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process is designed to assess the validity, significance, and originality of submitted manuscripts. It ensures that published research meets international standards of scientific accuracy, transparency, and ethical compliance.

2. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

  • Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, publication record, and impartiality.
  • Invitations must be accepted only when the reviewer can complete the review within the specified timeframe (usually 10–14 days).
  • Reviewers should decline invitations when conflicts of interest exist.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, or discuss them with anyone outside the editorial team. Unpublished data or findings must not be used for personal or professional advantage.

4. Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviews must be conducted objectively, without personal bias or prejudice. Criticisms should be constructive, specific, and supported by clear reasoning and scientific evidence.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must immediately disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment, such as:

  • Collaborations with the authors or institutions involved.
  • Financial or professional relationships related to the study topic.
  • Personal competition or rivalry with the authors.

6. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must identify ethical concerns such as:

  • Plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
  • Data fabrication or manipulation.
  • Unethical human or animal research practices.

Suspected issues should be reported confidentially to the editor rather than directly to the authors.

7. Review Structure and Format

JAPCH recommends reviewers structure their reports as follows:

  • Summary: Briefly describe the article’s objectives and major findings.
  • Major Comments: Discuss design flaws, data inconsistencies, or methodological weaknesses.
  • Minor Comments: Note typographical errors, formatting issues, or unclear statements.
  • Recommendation: Choose from “Accept,” “Minor Revision,” “Major Revision,” or “Reject.”

8. Language and Tone

Reviews should be written respectfully, avoiding derogatory or judgmental language. Constructive criticism should aim to improve manuscript quality, not discourage authors.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers must adhere to deadlines agreed upon during invitation acceptance. If an extension is needed, they should inform the editor promptly to avoid publication delays.

10. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may include confidential notes to editors regarding manuscript quality, ethical issues, or potential concerns not appropriate for direct author communication.

11. Plagiarism Detection and Reporting

Reviewers are encouraged to check for plagiarism or similarity to previously published work. If detected, they should alert the editorial team with appropriate references.

12. Data Transparency

Reviewers should assess whether data presentation and statistical analyses are clear, accurate, and reproducible. They should encourage data-sharing statements where relevant.

13. Manuscripts Involving Human or Animal Research

Reviewers must ensure that studies involving human or animal subjects include ethical approval statements, informed consent, and adherence to international standards (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki, ARRIVE guidelines).

14. Reviewer Recognition and Anonymity

JAPCH values reviewer contributions and may acknowledge them annually with certificates or public recognition (unless anonymity is requested). The review process remains double-blind to protect impartiality.

15. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Review

Reviewers must not use AI tools to generate review content. If AI-assisted tools are used for grammar or reference checks, such use must be declared to the editor per COPE’s AI Guidelines.

16. Post-Review Responsibilities

Reviewers must delete manuscript files after completing the review. They must not discuss published or rejected papers publicly unless authorized by the editor.

17. Reviewer Rewards and Certification

Active reviewers are eligible for recognition through certificates, waivers, or membership invitations to the JAPCH reviewer board. Quality and consistency are the primary criteria for selection.

18. Contact Information

For reviewer support or ethical concerns:
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.pediatricshealthjournal.com