For Reviewers

AHM Journal strictly adhere to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

We recommend reviewers to refer to COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association https://oaspa.org/

The reviewers who accept review commitment should follow the ethical requirements:

Disclose conflicts of interest before starting the review process. Refrain from the reviewing duties if there is any competing conflict.

Decline the invitation in a timely fashion if not available or if the topic of the manuscript doesn’t fall within the reviewer’s areas of expertise. If possible, please recommend alternative reviewers.

Report any suspected misconduct to the editors for further investigation.

Keep the assigned manuscripts confidential.

Prepare the review report in depth, detailing both the strengths and the shortcomings of the manuscript. The comments to the authors should be professional with the goal to encourage the authors to improve their work.

Submit the completed review report within the expected timeframe.

The reviewers are asked to fill in an online review form, which covers the following important points that need to be evaluated while reviewing a manuscript:

• Originality and Novelty. The results reported in the manuscript must be original work of the authors without any plagiarism or fabrication. Any part of the manuscript should not be published before elsewhere. The authors should mention if part of the data were presented as an abstract at a meeting before.

The novelty of the manuscript should also be considered. Manuscripts providing new insight or findings are preferred.

• Scope of the journal: The work should be within the scope of the AHM journal, of interest to the readership of journal and provide an advance in current knowledge.
• Scientific Soundness. The reviewers should ensure that the study design is appropriate. Experiments and data analysis should follow the recognized technical standards. The conclusion of the study must be supported by reasonable evidence from the presented data. The methods, tools, and software used in the manuscripts should be described in details so that the result of the study may be reproduced.
• Research Ethics. The research involving human, animal, or cell lines should be designed and conducted in an ethically acceptable manner. Any work fails to comply with the Research Ethics Guidelines should be rejected.
• Language: grammar and syntax. The manuscript should be written in English clearly and free from spelling and grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. If needed, authors would be advised to use professional medical English editing service before acceptance.

After evaluating a manuscript in details, reviewers are asked to provide an overall recommendation to editors:

• Accept in the current form: if the manuscript is presented clearly and accurately; the method is described sufficiently in details; the conclusion is supported strongly by the data; the research makes significant contribution to the field; and there is few grammatical mistakes or inaccurate expression.
• Minor revision: if the manuscript is scientifically sound and acceptable but authors need to address a number of simple comments and questions. Reviewers should provide specific comments and suggestions item by item.
• Major revision: if the concept of the study is important to the field but the work needs to be re-evaluated after addressing major comments raised by the reviewers. Reviewers should provide specific comments and suggestions item by item on how to improve the manuscript and make it ready for reevaluation. Usually a manuscript after major revisions will be sent back to the reviewers or editors for a second review.
• Rejection: if the manuscript contains any confirmed misconducts, methodological flow, or has no original significant contribution.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide feedback after review. Please note, editors make decisions on manuscripts after careful consideration of all reviewers’ comments. Editors can make a decision that conflicts with reviewers’ suggestions. In this case, editors will provide justification to reviewers and authors.