Reviewer's Responsibilities

1. Role and Importance of Reviewers

Peer reviewers provide independent, expert evaluations that help editors make informed decisions and assist authors in improving the scientific and ethical quality of their manuscripts. Their feedback directly contributes to the credibility of the journal.

2. Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on expertise, experience, and ethical reputation in pediatrics, child health, or related biomedical sciences. They must have published at least one peer-reviewed paper in a relevant field.

3. Core Responsibilities

• Provide fair, objective, and evidence-based assessments of the manuscript’s quality and validity.
• Submit reviews within the assigned deadline (typically 14 days).
• Maintain confidentiality of all materials received for review.
• Identify ethical or scientific concerns such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research conduct.

4. Confidentiality Obligation

All materials received for review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not discuss, share, or use unpublished data for personal advantage. Confidentiality continues even after the manuscript’s publication or rejection.

5. Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviews should be constructive, focused on scientific merit, and devoid of personal criticism. Comments must be precise, courteous, and supported by evidence or literature references.

6. Conflict of Interest Declaration

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as:

• Collaborations with the author or institution.
• Financial interests related to the study outcome.
• Personal or professional bias that could affect objectivity.

In such cases, the reviewer should decline the invitation to review.

7. Review Report Structure

To ensure clarity and consistency, reviewers are advised to structure their reports as follows:

Summary: A concise overview of the manuscript’s purpose and findings.
Major Comments: Evaluation of originality, methodology, ethics, and conclusions.
Minor Comments: Notes on grammar, structure, or minor data inconsistencies.
Recommendation: Choose one: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

8. Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers must be alert to unethical practices such as plagiarism, redundant publication, or improper authorship attribution. Any suspicion should be reported confidentially to the editorial office rather than to the authors.

9. Constructive Feedback

Feedback should help authors enhance clarity, rigor, and relevance. Reviewers should suggest specific improvements instead of general criticisms. The tone should remain professional, regardless of recommendation outcome.

10. Use of AI Tools in Review

Reviewers are prohibited from using AI-generated text to produce reviews. If AI-based grammar or plagiarism checkers are used, reviewers must disclose this to the editor per COPE AI Ethics Guidelines.

11. Time Management

Timely submission of reviews is essential for an efficient publication process. Reviewers unable to meet the deadline should inform the editor immediately to allow reassignment without delay.

12. Review Ethics and Confidential Comments

Reviewers may include confidential comments to editors regarding ethical or methodological concerns. These will remain private and will not be shared with authors.

13. Manuscript Reassessment

For revised manuscripts, reviewers should verify that all concerns raised in the initial review have been adequately addressed and improvements incorporated appropriately.

14. Professional Conduct

Reviewers must maintain professional courtesy at all times, avoid biased remarks, and respect authors’ intellectual property. Discriminatory or personal remarks are unacceptable.

15. Reviewer Recognition

JAPCH acknowledges reviewer contributions through annual certificates, special mentions, and potential eligibility for editorial board membership. Reviewer names may also appear in acknowledgment lists (with consent).

16. Breach of Reviewer Ethics

Any misconduct—such as sharing manuscripts, using confidential data, or submitting fabricated reviews—will result in immediate removal from the reviewer database and reporting to relevant institutions or COPE.

17. Continuous Learning

Reviewers are encouraged to participate in COPE and WAME reviewer training modules to stay current with best practices in peer review, ethics, and research evaluation.

18. Contact Information

For reviewer guidelines, training opportunities, or ethical queries:
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.pediatricshealthjournal.com