Reviewer Guidelines

Archives of Community Medicine and Public Health (ACMPH) relies on the expertise of reviewers to ensure the quality, integrity, and scientific merit of published research. This Reviewer Guidelines document outlines the responsibilities, ethical considerations, and best practices for peer reviewers.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic and ethical integrity of ACMPH. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide Constructive Feedback: Offer detailed, clear, and constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscript.
  • Ensure Scientific Accuracy: Evaluate the manuscript’s methodology, data analysis, results, and conclusions.
  • Assess Originality: Identify plagiarism or redundant publication using appropriate checks.
  • Maintain Confidentiality: Do not share or discuss the manuscript with others without prior editorial approval.
  • Identify Ethical Concerns: Report potential ethical issues such as data fabrication, conflicts of interest, or author misconduct.
  • Complete Reviews on Time: Provide timely and professional reviews to avoid publication delays.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and Novelty: Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge to the field?
  • Scientific Rigor: Is the study design, methodology, and data analysis appropriate and robust?
  • Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-structured, clearly written, and properly referenced?
  • Relevance: Does the study align with the journal’s aims and scope?
  • Conclusion Validity: Are the interpretations supported by the results?

Ethical Considerations for Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to the highest ethical standards, as outlined by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Ethical responsibilities include:

  • Avoiding Conflicts of Interest: Decline the review if there is a personal or professional connection with the authors.
  • Respecting Confidentiality: Do not use unpublished data for personal research.
  • Providing Unbiased Reviews: Assess the manuscript impartially, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, or institutional affiliation.
  • Reporting Plagiarism and Ethical Violations: Inform the editorial team of any ethical concerns or research misconduct.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process at ACMPH follows a double-blind peer review model:

  • Manuscript Assignment: The editor assigns the manuscript to appropriate reviewers based on expertise.
  • Review Invitation: The reviewer accepts or declines the review request.
  • Manuscript Evaluation: The reviewer assesses the manuscript based on scientific rigor, originality, and ethical compliance.
  • Feedback Submission: Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
  • Editorial Decision: The editor makes a final decision based on reviewer comments.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets all standards and is ready for publication.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor modifications before acceptance.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial improvements.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality and ethical standards.

Best Practices for Reviewers

To ensure a high-quality review process, reviewers should:

  • Be Thorough: Provide detailed, specific, and constructive feedback.
  • Be Professional: Maintain a respectful tone in all communications.
  • Be Objective: Focus on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
  • Meet Deadlines: Complete reviews within the requested timeframe.
  • Communicate Delays: Inform the editor if more time is needed.

Ensuring Rigorous and Ethical Peer Review!