Reviewer's Responsibilities

Archives of Community Medicine and Public Health (ACMPH) values the contributions of reviewers in maintaining high scholarly standards and ensuring the integrity of the peer review process. Reviewers play a key role in evaluating the quality, accuracy, and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts. This Reviewer's Responsibilities policy outlines the expectations, ethical obligations, and best practices for peer reviewers.

Key Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to uphold the following responsibilities to ensure a rigorous and ethical peer review process:

  • Provide an Objective and Constructive Review: Offer detailed, unbiased, and constructive feedback that enhances the quality of the manuscript.
  • Assess Scientific Validity: Ensure that the research methodology, data analysis, and conclusions are accurate and reliable.
  • Maintain Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript details, data, and review comments as confidential information.
  • Identify Ethical Concerns: Report potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, or conflicts of interest.
  • Complete Reviews on Time: Submit timely reviews to avoid unnecessary publication delays.
  • Declare Conflicts of Interest: Inform the editorial team if a personal, financial, or professional conflict of interest exists that may compromise objectivity.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must adhere to strict confidentiality and ethical guidelines:

  • Do Not Share Manuscripts: Reviewers should not share or discuss manuscripts with others without editorial permission.
  • Do Not Use Unpublished Data: Information obtained from the review process should not be used for personal research or gain.
  • Avoid Bias: Reviews should be free from personal bias, discrimination, or prejudice.
  • Report Ethical Violations: Any suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, or ethical breach should be reported to the editorial board.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and Novelty: Does the research provide new insights or advancements in the field?
  • Methodological Rigor: Is the study design, data collection, and statistical analysis appropriate?
  • Logical Structure and Clarity: Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and appropriately referenced?
  • Relevance to the Journal: Does the manuscript align with the scope and objectives of ACMPH?
  • Conclusion Accuracy: Are the interpretations justified by the results?

Review Submission and Decision Recommendations

Reviewers should provide a detailed report that includes:

  • Overall Assessment: A summary of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
  • Major and Minor Revisions: Specific comments on areas requiring improvement.
  • Recommendation for Publication: Select one of the following options:
    • Accept: The manuscript meets all quality and ethical standards.
    • Minor Revisions: Minor modifications are required before acceptance.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial improvements.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific and ethical standards.

Best Practices for Reviewers

To ensure high-quality and ethical reviews, reviewers should:

  • Be Thorough: Provide comprehensive and detailed feedback.
  • Be Professional: Maintain a constructive and respectful tone.
  • Be Objective: Focus on scientific content rather than personal opinions.
  • Meet Deadlines: Submit reviews within the requested timeframe.
  • Communicate Delays: Inform the editorial team if more time is needed to complete the review.

Ethical Guidelines Followed by ACMPH

The journal adheres to ethical guidelines established by:

Ensuring Rigorous and Ethical Peer Review!