Guidelines for Reviewers

IARJHSS seeks to benefit authors and the larger research community by making as much research accessible as possible, provided that it complies with our journal's strict guidelines for ethical conduct and research practises and is accepted after peer review.

1. Peer review mode

IARJHSS uses double-blind peer review, which means:

• the reviewer’s name is NOT disclosed to the author
• the author’s name is disclosed to the reviewer

2. Transparent peer review

IARJHSS has adopted a transparent peer review method as an option for all manuscripts as part of a commitment to openness and accountability and to raise the level of transparency throughout our peer review process.

3. The role of reviewers

We will send you an email and ask you to accept or refuse the invitation through our submission system if we require your assistance in evaluating a manuscript. We solicit reviewers' help in confirming that any research published in the IARJHSS have been carried out properly, are ethical and credible from a scientific standpoint, and have been reported in compliance with the necessary standards (e.g., the CARE guidelines for case reports).

• Quickly provide a thorough, insightful, and objective assessment of the work's scientific substance.
• Determining the writing's relevance, clarity, and conciseness as well as its originality and scientific accuracy.
• Preserving the secrecy of the entire evaluation process.
• Notifying the journal editor of any potential conflicts of interest, whether financial or personal, and rejecting to review a manuscript if one might be present.

Notifying the journal editor of any ethical issues they come across while reviewing submitted articles, such as any unethical treatment of animal or human subjects or any striking similarities between a manuscript under review and one that has already been published.

The Editorial Office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript, based on the reviewers' comments.

We value the opinions of our reviewers. We would be happy to hear from you if you have any thoughts you would want to share regarding a manuscript you have reviewed, our decision regarding it, or our review process in general.

4. Recognition for reviewers

As a token of our gratitude for their assistance in enabling us to publish high-quality articles, we regularly award the best reviewer of each month and congratulate them on their accomplishments. 

5. To become a reviewer

If you're interested in reviewing for our journal, send an email to the editorial office at editor@iarconsortium.org with a copy of your resume attached and a list of the kind of articles you're interested in reviewing.

6. Guidance for peer reviewers

• When submitting a review through our submission system, kindly disclose any potential conflicts of interest you may have with respect to the content. These might pertain to your personal life, career, or finances.
• You might find it useful to check our author rules prior to writing your review. Reviews ought to be carried out in a fair and impartial manner. Criticism should be objective, not just based on personal preferences, and should be given with the intention of helping the author improve their work. When preparing a paper for our publication, writers must follow the reporting standards and submit a completed checklist for each one. We recommend using this completed checklist from the review activity to help you with your review. Please make sure the report contains the bare minimum of data required by the checklist before using the reporting guidelines to help you evaluate the article. As part of your review comments, you could also specify what further information needs to be submitted if you discover that the checklist has been erroneously completed or that the manuscript does not truly contain the information required by the checklist. A reporting guideline offers suggestions for the kind of questions that should be taken into account when designing a study, but it cannot be used to evaluate the quality of the technique employed in the study.

• All unpublished writings are private information. Nobody but the editorial team and peer reviewers should be made aware that a paper is being evaluated. Peer reviewers are expected to keep all information about the papers they read confidential, and they are not allowed to discuss a particular manuscript or its contents with anyone else without the editors of the journal's prior approval. If you accept our invitation to evaluate an article and decide to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, kindly remind them that the review is confidential and credit them for their contributions. Please urge your co-workers to sign up as reviewers as well.

• You can speak with the Editorial Office in confidentiality if you have any significant questions about the publication ethics of a manuscript (for example, if you think you have found evidence of plagiarism).

We are very grateful to all of the reviewers who have supported our journal so far.