Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Avicenna Journal of Clinical and Translational Medicine

AJCTM values the contribution of independent peer reviewers to scientific quality, research integrity, and responsible scholarly publication.

These guidelines explain the responsibilities of reviewers and the standards expected during manuscript assessment.

1. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient relevant expertise, can provide an impartial assessment, and expect to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers should respond to invitations within five days where possible.

Potential competing interests must be declared before accepting a review. These may include recent collaborations, shared institutional affiliations, financial relationships, personal associations, or academic conflicts.

2. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and related materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not distribute manuscript files, discuss unpublished findings with unauthorized individuals, or use information obtained during review for personal benefit.

Reviewers must not involve colleagues, students, or trainees in the review without prior editorial permission.

Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external AI tools without appropriate authorization and adequate confidentiality safeguards.

3. Scientific Assessment

Reviewers should provide an evidence-based, constructive, and impartial assessment of the manuscript's scientific merits.

The review should address:

• Originality and scientific significance
• Clarity of research objectives
• Appropriateness of study design
• Methodological rigor and reproducibility
• Statistical analysis and interpretation
• Research ethics and participant protection
• Validity of results and conclusions
• Study limitations and potential bias
• Clinical or translational relevance
• Reporting quality and reference accuracy

4. Recommended Review Report Structure

Reviewers are encouraged to organize their reports into the following sections:

A. Overall Assessment
A concise summary of the research question, principal contribution, strengths, and main limitations.

B. Major Comments
Substantive concerns involving methodology, analysis, interpretation, ethics, or scientific validity.

C. Minor Comments
Specific improvements to clarity, presentation, terminology, figures, tables, or references.

D. Confidential Comments to the Editor
Concerns that require private editorial consideration, including potential research-integrity issues or relevant conflicts of interest.

E. Recommendation
Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject, where these options are available in the journal's review form.

5. Constructive and Respectful Feedback

Review comments should be specific, professional, and scientifically justified. Personal criticism, dismissive language, and discriminatory remarks are unacceptable.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential scientific corrections and optional suggestions.

Requests for additional experiments or analyses should be proportionate to the research question and necessary to evaluate the principal claims.

6. Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers should promptly inform the handling editor if they identify concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, image manipulation, research ethics, or other possible publication misconduct.

Reviewers should report their concerns confidentially and should not independently contact the authors or their institutions without editorial authorization.

7. Review Timelines

AJCTM normally requests completion of peer review within 14-21 days after acceptance of the invitation.

If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office promptly to request an extension.

Reviewers who cannot complete an accepted assignment should notify the journal without unnecessary delay.

8. Independence of Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations assist editorial evaluation but do not constitute final publication decisions.

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor makes the final decision after considering the available scientific assessments.

Reviewers must not request citations to their own publications unless those references are scientifically necessary and directly relevant.

9. Reviewer Recognition

AJCTM values peer-review contributions and may provide certificates of appreciation or verification of completed reviews upon request.

Recognition must respect reviewer confidentiality and must not disclose manuscript details without appropriate permission.

10. Ethical Guidance

Reviewers are encouraged to consult the Committee on Publication Ethics guidance on responsible peer review.

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

11. Contact

For questions about invitations, review deadlines, conflicts of interest, or technical difficulties:

AJCTM Editorial Office
editor@ajctm.org