Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process

The journal adopts a double-blind/double-anonymous peer review process using external independent reviewers.

Identity of reviewers and review contents will not be disclosed nor otherwise made public.

No author recommended reviewers will either be asked for nor used in the manuscript review process.

During all stages of peer review participants are required to be alert to plagiarism problems and report them. In the initial screening an automated similarity report is produced and provided to reviewers and the editorial board.

Peer reviewers

Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process. AHRJ requests that all reviewers adhere to a set of basic principles and standards during the peer-review process in research publication; these are set out below. These conditions are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers which also provides further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review.

  • Conflicts of interest

  • Confidentiality

  • Timeliness

  • Scientific misconduct

  • Appropriate feedback

  • AI use

  • Ownership of your review

  • Open peer review

  • Our use of your review

  • Restrictions on your use of your review

  • Your registration details

Conflicts of interest

During the review process we ask you to declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which could be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature) so that editors can assess these and factor them into their decisions. Please refer any major concerns over potentially competing interests to the editorial office before beginning your review. In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to journals are authors’ private, confidential property; reviewers should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. If a reviewer chooses to discuss the manuscript and/or review with a professional colleague whose input requests as part of the review process, it is the reviewer’s responsibility to ensure that he/she is made fully aware of the confidential nature of the discussion and that he/she must not disclose any information about the manuscript until the article is published. Reviewers should not retain the manuscript for personal use and should destroy copies after submitting their review.

Timeliness

If a reviewer feels qualified to judge a particular manuscript, he/she should agree to review only if you able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame.

Scientific misconduct

If a reviewer has concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or noticed substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article he/she should let the journal Editor know.

Appropriate feedback

A reviewer must provide a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. For example, be specific in the critiques, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements. Reviewers must be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope.

AI use

If reviewers use AI technology to improve word processing and language, they should declare this when submitting their reports. However, reviewers should preserve the confidentiality of the peer review process by not putting unpublished manuscripts that they are reviewing (or information about them) into publicly available AI tools where the security of the confidential information cannot be guaranteed.

Ownership of reviews

Reviewers will remain the owner of the submitted reviews.

Restrictions on use of reviews

Reviews must not be made publicly available before or after publication by the reviewers, authors or editors.