Reviewer Guideline
Responsibilities of a Peer Reviewer
Provide fair, timely, and constructive evaluations focused on originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and scholarly contribution.
Reviews must be objective, confidential, and actionable. Please ground your feedback in evidence, cite standards/papers where useful, and declare any competing interests.
1. Role & Scope
The primary duty of a reviewer is to read and evaluate the manuscript within their expertise and provide constructive, evidence-based feedback to help authors and editors improve the work and reach a sound editorial decision.
- Highlight strengths and weaknesses, suggest concrete improvements, and assess relevance/originality.
- Evaluate adherence to journal scope, ethical standards, and reporting quality.
- Avoid personal criticism; focus on the work, not the author.
2. Pre-Review Checklist
- Fit to expertise: If the topic is outside your domain, notify the editor and suggest an alternative reviewer.
- Availability: Standard review window is two weeks. If you need more time, inform the editor promptly.
- Competing interests: Disclose any potential COI (financial or non-financial) before starting the review.
3. Review Process & Criteria
- Title: Is it specific, concise, and accurate?
- Abstract: Does it reflect the manuscript (structured & informative)?
- Introduction: Is the background clear, gap well-articulated, and objective stated?
- Article Content: Originality, depth, contribution, and alignment with journal standards.
- Scope: Fit with the journal’s aims and scope.
- Methods: Clarity of design, data sources, instruments, sampling; ethical approvals when applicable.
- Results: Clear, logical presentation; appropriate statistics/analysis; reproducibility cues.
- Discussion: Interpretation versus prior work; limitations; implications.
- Conclusions: Supported by the results; not overstated; future work indicated.
- Are visuals necessary, accurate, and easy to interpret?
- Are captions descriptive, and are all visuals cited in text?
- Image quality (≥300 dpi for rasters) and accessible design (e.g., readable labels).
- Balanced literature coverage (recent and seminal), coherent narrative, and proper English.
- Focus on a clear research question/topic; avoid redundancy and self-plagiarism.
- Consistency in style, units (SI), terminology, and citation format.
4. Ethics, Integrity & Misconduct
- Plagiarism: If suspected, flag specific overlapping passages and sources to the editor.
- Data/Fabrication: Report concerns about plausibility, statistics, or duplicated data/images.
- Human/Animal Research: Look for ethics approval, consent, and trial registration (where relevant).
- AI Use: If AI use appears beyond language editing, alert the editor (see Author Guidelines).
5. Recommendations & Decision Options
In your confidential note to the editor, select a recommendation and justify it briefly:
- Accept as is
- Minor revision (limited, clearly specified corrections)
- Major revision (substantive changes; re-review likely)
- Reject (explain key reasons: scope, novelty, methods, ethics, etc.)
6. Confidentiality & Data Handling
- Treat manuscripts as confidential; do not share or discuss outside the review process.
- Do not contact authors directly. All communication goes through the editorial office.
- Do not use unpublished materials for personal research or advantage.
7. Timelines & Communication
- Standard review window: two weeks. Request an extension early if needed.
- If you cannot complete the review, notify the editor promptly so an alternative can be appointed.
- Respond to editorial queries quickly to keep the process on schedule.
8. Competing Interests (COI)
JAFA respects requests that manuscripts not be reviewed by experts with competing interests. Because editors may be unaware of all COIs, reviewers must proactively disclose any potential conflicts.
- Financial: funding, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, paid expert testimony.
- Non-financial: personal, political, religious, ideological, academic, or intellectual competition/relationships.
- Disclosure allows editors to decide on reassignment or to record the COI if proceeding.
9. Recognition & Certificates
Upon completing assigned reviews through OJS, reviewers may receive an electronic certificate referencing the article(s) reviewed. This recognition does not influence editorial decisions.
