Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines – Journal of Advanced Homoeopathic Studies (JAHS)

The Journal of Advanced Homoeopathic Studies (JAHS) relies on the expertise and dedication of reviewers to maintain the highest standards of scientific quality. Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the integrity, relevance, and originality of published research.

1. General Principles

  • JAHS follows a double-blind peer review process (reviewers remain anonymous to authors, and authors remain anonymous to reviewers).

  • Reviews should be objective, constructive, and respectful, aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.

  • Confidentiality must be strictly maintained — reviewers must not share, copy, or use manuscript content for personal or professional purposes.

  • Conflicts of interest must be disclosed immediately to the Editor-in-Chief.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Assess the Manuscript

    • Evaluate originality, scientific validity, and relevance to the field of homoeopathy.

    • Consider methodology, ethical compliance, clarity, and quality of data interpretation.

    • Identify whether conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.

  2. Check for Ethical Concerns

    • Look for evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data fabrication.

    • Ensure that research involving humans/animals has appropriate ethical approvals.

  3. Provide Constructive Feedback

    • Highlight strengths of the paper.

    • Suggest specific improvements in structure, clarity, methodology, or references.

    • Avoid derogatory or personal remarks.

  4. Timeliness

    • Accept review invitations only if able to complete the task within the requested timeframe (generally 2–3 weeks).

    • Inform the editor promptly if an extension is needed.

  5. Recommendation

    • Reviewers must provide one of the following recommendations:

      • Accept without revision

      • Minor revisions required

      • Major revisions required

      • Reject

    • The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who may consider multiple reviewer inputs.

3. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

  • Content must not be shared, cited, or used until officially published.

  • If consultation with a colleague is necessary, prior permission from the editor is required.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review if:

  • They have financial, academic, or personal ties to the authors.

  • They have collaborated with the authors within the past three years.

  • They believe impartiality cannot be maintained.

5. How to Write a Review Report

A good review typically includes:

  1. Summary of the Manuscript (your understanding of its key contribution).

  2. Strengths (novelty, significance, methodological soundness).

  3. Weaknesses/Concerns (with clear, evidence-based reasoning).

  4. Specific Suggestions (improvements in study design, analysis, clarity, referencing).

  5. Recommendation (accept/minor/major/reject).

6. Recognition of Reviewers

  • JAHS values the contribution of reviewers.

  • Reviewers receive acknowledgment in the annual list of reviewers (with their consent).

  • Certificates of appreciation are issued upon request.

  • High-quality and timely reviewers may be considered for Editorial Board membership.

7. Ethical Expectations

  • Adhere to COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

  • Report any suspicion of research misconduct to the editor confidentially.

  • Ensure fairness, inclusivity, and non-discrimination in assessments.