Reviewer guidelines

Decide before reviewing:

• Can I complete the paper before the deadline?
• Is this study or part of studies falls under my expertise?
• Can I maintain anonymity throughout the process even if I know the author?
• Any conflict related to ethics, study result, authors or patent?
• Is the complete work original with a proper standard?
• Does the paper have sufficient information to reproduce the experiment again?

Reviewer Selection

It is based on areas of interest, availability, research field through the editorial office. In some cases, the editor is supported in terms of selecting the reviewer. The editorial office ensures that there won’t be any bias related to the review process.

Reviewer Responsibility:

• Conveniently providing unprejudiced input on the insightful benefits and the logical estimation of the research study.
• Checking production quality, originality in a concise manner.
• No personal criticisms are allowed throughout the process and only constructive comments related to the article.
• Maintain confidentiality in the review process.
• No materials of any manuscript are circulated with clear permission from the editorial office or editorial board.
• Kindly don’t rewrite any content without editor or author approval; any changes should be circulated through the Editor - in - Chief and Editorial Office.
• Don't purposefully drag out the review process, either by postponing the accommodation of your review or by asking for superfluous extra data from the author or journal office.
• Respect the confidentiality of the review and don't uncover information of the article after the review process unless you have permission from the author or editorial office.

Our Way to Scrutinize: Double Blinded

Steps to Process

Initiation: Inspecting Original Paper, Supplement files

• Accept
• Revise (Minor/Major)
• Resubmit/Transfer
• Reject
• Final Decision

Reviewer Feedback

• Prepare your constructive response based on our feedback form for the author. Be objective and productive in your audit, giving criticism that will assist the author in improving their original copy.
• Don’t include any other reviewer comments without Editorial Office approval.
• Provide a clear, concise, constructive comment with proper reason.

Benefits for Reviewers in ARJ:

• All reviewers are entitled to receive a 50% discount on the publication of their article as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd author. Any participation in your presence in any article will receive this offer.
• Reviewer Awards and Certificates.