Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is central to maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of Acta Health Scientifica. We are grateful to our reviewers for the time and expertise they contribute to this process. These guidelines outline the general principles and expectations for reviewers.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review helps editors decide whether a manuscript is suitable for publication and helps authors improve the quality, clarity, and rigor of their work. Reviewers act as independent, objective evaluators of scientific merit, methodology, and originality.

2. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript or any part of its content with anyone not directly involved in the review process, without prior permission from the editor.
  • Do not use ideas, data, or findings from a manuscript under review for your own research or professional benefit prior to publication.
  • Manuscript content must not be uploaded to generative AI tools or any third-party platform, as this constitutes a breach of confidentiality.
  • Delete or securely dispose of manuscript files once the review process is complete.

3. Conflict of Interest

Before accepting a review invitation, disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office, including but not limited to:

  • A financial, personal, or professional relationship with any of the authors;
  • Recent collaboration with the authors or their institution;
  • Direct competition with the research described in the manuscript.

If a conflict of interest exists, decline the review invitation.

4. Timeliness

Respond to review invitations promptly, indicating whether you are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe. If you are unable to complete a review on time, notify the editorial office as early as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

5. Conducting the Review

A constructive review should address:

  • Originality and relevance: Does the manuscript present novel findings relevant to the journal's scope?
  • Methodology: Is the study design appropriate, and are methods described in sufficient detail for replication?
  • Validity of results: Are the statistical analyses appropriate, and are the results clearly and accurately presented?
  • Interpretation: Are the conclusions supported by the data, without overstatement?
  • Ethical compliance: Are ethics committee approval, informed consent, and other required declarations present and adequate?
  • Clarity: Is the manuscript well organized and clearly written?

Comments should be specific, evidence-based, and constructive. Where possible, reference the relevant section, page, or line number. Avoid personal remarks about the authors; focus solely on the scientific content of the work.

6. Recommendation

Reviewers provide a recommendation to the editor (e.g., Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject), along with the supporting comments. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who may consider multiple reviewer reports collectively.

7. Suspected Misconduct

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, or any other form of research misconduct, this should be reported to the editorial office promptly, with supporting details, rather than addressed directly with the authors.

8. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers may use AI tools only for language editing of text they have personally written (i.e., the review report itself). Manuscript content under review must never be submitted to any AI system.

9. Anonymity

Acta Health Scientifica follows a double-blind review process. Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors of the manuscript, and should notify the editorial office if the authors' identity becomes apparent during review.