How to Conduct a Review

The peer-review process is an essential component of maintaining the quality, integrity, and reliability of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play an important role in evaluating the scientific merit of manuscripts and in providing constructive feedback to authors.

1. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following:

• Expertise: Accept the invitation only if the manuscript falls within your area of expertise and you are able to provide an informed and objective assessment.
• Conflict of Interest: Inform the editorial team of any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting the review.
• Availability: Consider whether you have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers are encouraged to respond to review invitations as soon as possible. If unable to review the manuscript, reviewers may, where appropriate, suggest alternative qualified reviewers to the editorial team.

2. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or discuss the manuscript or any information obtained through the review process without prior authorization from the editorial team. Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, ideas, or interpretations contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and should decline the review if they are unable to provide an impartial assessment. Reviewers should also inform the editorial team if they identify serious concerns relating to research integrity, ethical approval, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, or other forms of publication misconduct. 

Reviewers should first read the manuscript carefully and consider its overall contribution before preparing their detailed comments. The review should be objective, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful.

Reviewers are generally expected to consider the following aspects:

• Originality and significance: Does the manuscript provide a meaningful and original contribution to the field?
• Literature and theoretical background: Is the relevant literature adequately considered and appropriately integrated?
• Methodology: Are the research design, sampling, measures, procedures, and methods appropriate and sufficiently rigorous?
• Data analysis: Are the analytical procedures appropriate, clearly reported, and adequately justified?
• Results: Are the findings presented clearly and supported by the reported evidence?
• Discussion: Are the findings interpreted appropriately in relation to previous research and the research questions?
• Conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the findings and consistent with the study objectives?
• Ethical standards: Does the manuscript comply with relevant ethical and research integrity requirements?
• Presentation: Is the manuscript clearly organized and written in an academically appropriate manner?

Reviewers should distinguish between major issues that may affect the validity or contribution of the manuscript and minor issues that can be addressed through revision.

4. Writing the Review

A useful review should provide clear and constructive feedback that can assist both the editor in making an informed decision and the authors in improving their manuscript.

Reviewers are encouraged to:

• Begin with a brief overall assessment of the manuscript;
• Identify the main strengths and limitations of the study;
• Provide specific and clearly explained comments;
• Distinguish major concerns from minor or editorial issues;
• Support methodological or scientific criticisms with appropriate reasoning; and
• Maintain a professional, respectful, and constructive tone.

Reviews should not contain personal, discriminatory, offensive, or ad hominem comments. Reviewers should not attempt to identify themselves to the authors or disclose their identity through comments or other information included in the review.

5. Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation to the editorial team. Possible recommendations may include:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited revisions.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before a publication decision can be made.
• Reject: The manuscript has substantial limitations that prevent publication in its current form.

The recommendation should be supported by the comments provided in the review report. Reviewers should focus on the scientific and scholarly merits of the manuscript rather than on personal preferences.

6. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Where the review system provides a separate section for confidential comments to the editor, reviewers may use this section to raise concerns that are not appropriate for communication to the authors, including potential ethical issues, conflicts of interest, or concerns about research integrity.

Comments to the editor should remain professional, evidence-based, and consistent with the substantive assessment provided in the review.

7. Revised Manuscripts

When a revised manuscript is submitted for further evaluation, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during the previous review. Reviewers are not expected to require changes that are unnecessary for the scientific validity, clarity, or integrity of the manuscript.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should not upload manuscripts, reviewer reports, or other confidential materials to publicly available artificial intelligence tools or other external services that may compromise the confidentiality of the peer-review process.

Reviewers remain responsible for the content and accuracy of any comments submitted to the journal. Any use of technological or artificial intelligence tools must be consistent with confidentiality, data protection, and research integrity requirements.

Final Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the editorial team after considering the reviewer reports and the overall editorial assessment. A reviewer’s recommendation is advisory and does not determine the final publication decision.

JOHAH appreciates the time and expertise contributed by reviewers and is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, constructive, and rigorous peer-review process.