Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is central to the quality, credibility, and integrity of Health Research Review (HRR). This guide outlines the responsibilities, ethical standards, and practical expectations for reviewers participating in the journal’s double-blind peer review process.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to:

  • Maintaining high scholarly standards in health sciences, medical research, public health, and clinical studies

  • Enhancing clarity, rigor, and relevance of submitted manuscripts

  • Supporting fair, constructive, and timely editorial decisions

Reviews should aim to help authors strengthen their work, regardless of whether the manuscript is ultimately accepted.

2. Review Model

HRR operates a double-blind peer review system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers

  • All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents

3. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept only if:

  • The manuscript falls within their expertise in health research, clinical practice, or public health

  • They can complete the review within the requested timeframe (usually 2–3 weeks)

  • No conflict of interest exists

Conflicts of interest include:

  • Recent collaboration with the author(s)

  • Institutional affiliation with the author(s)

  • Financial, personal, or professional relationships that may influence judgment

If a conflict exists, reviewers must decline the invitation.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts as strictly confidential

  • Not share, discuss, or use the content for personal research

  • Not upload manuscripts to AI tools or third-party platforms

  • Delete review materials after the review process is complete

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide honest, objective, and unbiased evaluations

  • Avoid discriminatory or personal remarks

  • Identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data integrity issues, or unethical research practices

  • Inform the editor of any suspected misconduct

6. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must not:

  • Upload manuscripts to AI tools or external platforms

  • Use AI to generate review reports

Reviewers may:

  • Use personal reference management tools for citation checking

  • Rely on their expertise and scholarly judgment

All reviews must remain human intellectual contributions.

7. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

7.1 Relevance and Scope

  • Is the manuscript aligned with health sciences, clinical research, or public health practice?

  • Does it fit HRR’s aims and scope?

7.2 Originality and Contribution

  • Does the study provide new insights, methodologies, or clinical evidence?

  • Are theoretical, clinical, or policy implications clearly articulated?

7.3 Literature and Theory

  • Is the literature review current and comprehensive?

  • Is the conceptual or theoretical framework appropriate and well-justified?

7.4 Methodology

  • Is the research design, experimental setup, or analytical method appropriate?

  • Are data sources, sampling, and analytical methods clearly explained and robust?

  • Are results reproducible and verifiable?

7.5 Results and Discussion

  • Are findings clearly presented and logically interpreted?

  • Does discussion link results to theory, practice, and health policy implications?

7.6 Conclusions and Implications

  • Are conclusions supported by evidence?

  • Are clinical, public health, or policy implications meaningful and actionable?

7.7 Presentation and Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well-structured and clearly written?

  • Are tables, figures, and appendices relevant and clear?

8. Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their report as follows:

A. Summary

  • Briefly summarize the manuscript and its key contribution

B. Major Comments

  • Substantive issues related to theory, methodology, analysis, or practical relevance

C. Minor Comments

  • Suggestions on clarity, organization, language, or formatting

Comments should be specific, actionable, and constructive.

9. Recommendation Options

Reviewers should select one of the following:

  • Accept

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

Recommendations should align with the detailed comments provided.

10. Tone and Professionalism

Reviews should be:

  • Constructive, respectful, and objective

  • Focused on the work, not the authors

  • Balanced, providing helpful guidance even when recommending rejection

11. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe

  • Inform the editor promptly if delays occur

Timely reviews are essential to maintain the journal’s quality and author satisfaction.

12. Post-Review Conduct

After submitting a review:

  • Do not contact authors directly

  • Do not discuss the manuscript publicly

  • Maintain confidentiality indefinitely

13. Recognition of Reviewers

HRR acknowledges reviewers’ contributions by:

  • Annual acknowledgment lists (with consent)

  • Reviewer certificates upon request

  • Consideration for editorial or guest editor roles based on performance

14. Compliance with Standards

Reviewers must comply with:

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

  • HRR-specific policies on ethics, confidentiality, and scholarly conduct

Non-compliance may result in removal from the reviewer pool.