Role and Responsibility

Reviewers are expected to provide expert, independent, and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts. The primary responsibility of a reviewer is to help editors make informed decisions about publication and to assist authors in improving their work. Reviewers should assess manuscripts fairly and objectively, basing their evaluation solely on the scientific and scholarly merit of the work, without regard to the authors' identity, affiliation, nationality, or other personal characteristics. Each reviewer must assess whether the manuscript falls within the journal's aim and scope, and if they find a significant mismatch, they should promptly notify the editor rather than proceeding with a review outside their area of expertise.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review are strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or its contents with third parties
• Use unpublished data or ideas from the manuscript for personal advantage
• Discuss the manuscript with colleagues without explicit editor permission
• Retain copies of the manuscript after the review is complete

Breach of confidentiality may result in exclusion from future reviewing activities and referral to appropriate professional bodies.

Objectivity and Review Quality

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, specific, and well-reasoned feedback. Reviews should:

• Identify the strengths and limitations of the study
• Point out methodological concerns or gaps in the evidence
• Suggest concrete, actionable revisions
• Be respectful, professional, and constructive in tone
• Avoid vague or dismissive comments

Assessment Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must assess whether the manuscript adequately addresses ethical requirements, including:

• Ethical approval or waiver from the appropriate Ethics Committee or IRB
• Informed consent from participants
• Compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki or equivalent guidelines
• Adequate participant anonymization and data protection
• Registration of clinical trials in an approved registry

If ethical concerns are identified, reviewers should clearly indicate them in their report and recommend that the editor address these issues before proceeding with publication.

Competing Interests

Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts where they have potential competing interests, including:

• A close professional or personal relationship with any of the authors
• A direct competitive relationship with the submitting research group
• Financial interests in the outcome of the study
• Prior knowledge of the manuscript's identity, contents, or authorship

Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest after accepting a review invitation should promptly notify the editor and withdraw from the review process. Any potential competing interests that do not disqualify the reviewer must be disclosed to the editor prior to submitting the review.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review invitations, ideally within 3 business days of receiving the invitation. If a reviewer accepts the invitation, the review should be submitted within the deadline specified in the invitation (typically 3 weeks). If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial office as early as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made. If the assigned reviewer is unable to complete the review, they may suggest qualified alternative reviewers to the editor, provided there are no conflicts of interest with the suggested reviewers.

Review Report Structure

The review report should be structured and include the following components:

Use of AI Tools

Reviewers should be aware that the use of AI-assisted tools during the peer review process raises important ethical and confidentiality concerns. Reviewers must not:

• Upload or share any part of a confidential manuscript to AI language models or tools without editor approval
• Submit AI-generated reviews as their own work without appropriate disclosure
• Rely solely on AI-generated content to form editorial judgements

If AI tools are used in any part of the review process, this must be disclosed in the review report. Reviewers remain solely responsible for the accuracy, quality, and integrity of their review, regardless of any tools used.

Post-Review Responsibilities

After submitting their review, reviewers may be asked to evaluate the revised manuscript to assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised. Reviewers should:

• Assess whether all major and minor concerns have been adequately addressed
• Provide a clear revised recommendation based on the revision
• Note any remaining concerns that may still require attention
• Respond promptly when asked to review a revised manuscript

Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of professional conduct throughout the review process. Any communication with the editorial office should be professional and respectful. Reviewers should never attempt to contact authors directly unless explicitly authorized by the editor. Violations of peer review ethics, including but not limited to breach of confidentiality, plagiarism of reviewed content, inappropriate reviewer behavior, or misuse of manuscript data, will result in immediate removal from the reviewer database and may be reported to relevant institutional and professional authorities.

Reviewer Recognition

JAIMPH values the contributions of its reviewers and is committed to recognizing their efforts. Reviewers may receive:

• An official acknowledgment in the journal's annual reviewer listing
• A certificate of recognition upon request
• Access to reviewer recognition programs and platforms such as Publons/Web of Science