Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality, integrity, transparency and scientific credibility of ARCC Journals. Through independent and objective evaluation, reviewers assist editors in assessing the originality, validity, relevance, reporting quality and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts. 

Reviewers provide expert recommendations; the assigned editor remains responsible for interpreting the reports and making the final editorial decision. Reviewers must follow this policy, the ARCC Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics Policy and any journal-specific instructions supplied with the invitation. 

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject or methodological expertise, research experience, publication or professional record, previous review quality where available, independence and absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest. 

Before accepting an invitation, a reviewer should confirm that they: 

• Have sufficient expertise to provide an authoritative assessment of the manuscript or the specific aspect assigned to them. 

• Can complete the review within the requested timeframe. 

• Can maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process. 

• Have no relationship or interest that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality. 

• Can comply with the journal's instructions regarding AI, data protection, ethical concerns and reviewer conduct. 

A reviewer who lacks appropriate expertise, is unavailable, cannot protect confidentiality or identifies a relevant conflict should decline the invitation promptly. Reviewers should not accept an invitation merely to gain access to unpublished work.

Reviewers should provide a fair, evidence-based and constructive assessment of the manuscript. Depending on the article type and discipline, the review should consider: 

• Relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope. 

• Originality and significance of the research question or scholarly contribution. 

• Appropriateness and transparency of the study design, methods and analysis. 

• Accuracy, completeness and clarity of the results and their presentation. 

• Whether the discussion and conclusions are supported by the evidence. 

• Important limitations, potential bias and alternative interpretations. 

• Adequacy of reporting, references, data-availability information and supplementary material. 

• Applicable human or animal ethics approval, consent, registration, permits and other regulatory requirements. 

• Any apparent concern relating to plagiarism, duplicate publication, authorship, data or image integrity, conflicts of interest or other research misconduct. 

Reviewers are not expected to be specialists in every element of a manuscript. They should clearly identify aspects that fall outside their competence and advise the editor when additional statistical, methodological or subject expertise may be required. 

Review reports should be: 

• Specific, clear and sufficiently detailed to support the reviewer's recommendation. 

• Constructive and focused on improving the accuracy, transparency and scholarly value of the manuscript. 

• Professional and respectful, without personal criticism, insulting language or discriminatory remarks. 

• Proportionate to the claims and scope of the study; reviewers should not demand unnecessary experiments or extensive new work that is not essential to evaluate the manuscript. 

• Supported by evidence or reasoning where a major concern, rejection recommendation or substantial revision is proposed. 

Comments intended only for the editor should not contradict the substantive assessment provided to the author. Reviewers should not use confidential comments to make unsupported allegations or to conceal material criticisms from the author. 

Manuscripts under review are confidential and privileged communications. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, reproduce or retain the manuscript, figures, tables, supplementary files, review correspondence or unpublished data except as authorised by the editor. 

Reviewers must not: 

• Use unpublished information, ideas, methods or data for personal, professional, financial or competitive advantage. 

• Share the manuscript or review task with a colleague, trainee or other person without prior permission from the editor. 

• Contact the authors directly or attempt to identify them under the double-blind peer review model. 

• Publish, post or circulate the review report or manuscript details without permission from ARCC and the relevant parties. 

Confidentiality obligations continue after the reviewer submits the report and after the journal reaches a decision. 

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary material, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence or unpublished research data to public or third-party artificial-intelligence systems where confidentiality, privacy, intellectual-property protection and data security cannot be assured. 

A reviewer who wishes to use an AI or automated tool to facilitate any part of a review must first follow the journal's stated policy and obtain permission from the editor where required. AI tools must not replace the reviewer's expert assessment or generate the substantive review on the reviewer's behalf. 

The reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality and completeness of the report, for identifying errors or bias in any approved tool output, and for protecting all confidential material. Unapproved use of AI that compromises confidentiality or substitutes for expert judgement may be treated as reviewer misconduct. 

Reviewers must disclose to the editor any financial, professional, institutional, academic or personal relationship that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their judgement. 

A reviewer should normally decline or seek guidance before accepting where, for example, they: 

• Work in the same institution, department or closely connected research unit as an author. 

• Have a recent or ongoing collaboration, supervisory, mentoring or close competitive relationship with an author. 

• Have a close personal or family relationship with an author. 

• Have a financial, employment, consultancy, patent, commercial or legal interest connected to the work. 

• Have been directly involved in the research, previously reviewed the same work for another journal, or have taken a strong public position that could prevent an impartial assessment. 

Disclosure does not automatically disqualify a reviewer in every case; the editor will determine whether the relationship can be managed. A reviewer must not conceal a conflict or proceed when impartial review is not possible.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance, reliability and ethical acceptability. A review must not be influenced by nationality, ethnicity, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, age, career stage, institutional affiliation, seniority, geographic location, political belief, funding status or personal reputation. 

Reviewers should remain alert to assumptions or bias in their own evaluation and should distinguish scientific concerns from differences in academic style, theoretical preference or institutional tradition.

Reviewers should promptly and confidentially inform the editor if they identify or reasonably suspect a serious ethical or research-integrity concern. Reviewers should provide the relevant evidence or location in the manuscript without contacting the authors or attempting an independent investigation. 

Concerns may include: 

• Plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication. 

• Data fabrication, falsification or unexplained inconsistencies. 

• Misleading image or figure manipulation. 

• Inappropriate or missing human or animal ethics approval, informed consent, trial registration or permits. 

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding influence. 

• Authorship irregularities or disputes. 

• Citation manipulation or coercive citation practices. 

• Peer review manipulation, false reviewer identities or paper-mill activity. 

• Fraudulent or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence. 

The editor is responsible for assessing the concern and determining the appropriate action under ARCC's Publication Ethics Policy.

Reviewers may recommend relevant references where they are necessary to correct an omission, support a methodological point or provide essential context. Every citation request should have a clear scholarly justification. 

Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to their own work, associates, an institution, a journal or a particular group of publications. Editors may remove unjustified citation requests and investigate repeated citation manipulation.

Reviewers should: 

• Treat authors and their work with respect, fairness and professional courtesy. 

• Provide comments that help authors understand material strengths, limitations and required corrections. 

• Avoid personal criticism, speculation about motives or remarks unrelated to the scholarly content. 

• Protect the authors' ideas, data, identity and intellectual property. 

• Avoid requesting changes that serve the reviewer's personal research interests rather than the manuscript's validity, clarity or relevance. 

Reviewers should: 

• Respond promptly to invitations and communicate any conflict, limitation of expertise or inability to meet the deadline. 

• Follow the review form, journal instructions and applicable reporting or ethical requirements. 

• Inform the editor if another expert review is needed for a specialised aspect of the manuscript. 

• Provide an objective recommendation supported by the report. 

• Notify the editor immediately if confidentiality has been compromised or if they become aware of a conflict after accepting the review. 

• Return or securely delete review materials when instructed and avoid retaining unnecessary copies. 

Reviewers should complete the review by the deadline stated in the invitation, which is commonly within two to four weeks but may vary by journal, article type and complexity. A reviewer who anticipates a delay should inform the editor as early as possible so that the editor can extend the deadline or invite another reviewer. 

Reviewers should not accept assignments they are unlikely to complete. Intentional delay, repeated non-response or using the review process to disadvantage another researcher may be treated as reviewer misconduct.

A reviewer may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection, or another outcome available in the review system. The recommendation is advisory and should be consistent with the concerns explained in the report. 

The assigned editor evaluates all reviewer reports, resolves conflicting advice where necessary and makes the final editorial decision. Reviewers must not promise acceptance or rejection to authors or represent their recommendation as the journal's final decision.

A reviewer must not delegate a review or involve another person without prior permission from the editor. Where supervised co-reviewing or reviewer training is approved, every person who accesses the manuscript must be identified to the editor, must agree to the same confidentiality and conflict requirements, and should receive appropriate credit where permitted. 

The invited reviewer remains responsible for the integrity and quality of the submitted report unless the editor formally appoints the additional person as a co-reviewer.

Reviewer misconduct may include: 

• Breach of confidentiality or unauthorised sharing of manuscript material. 

• Theft, copying or misuse of unpublished ideas, text, methods or data. 

• False identity, impersonation or participation in manipulated peer review. 

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest or knowingly biased review. 

• Intentional delay, retaliatory review or unfair criticism of a competitor. 

• Personal, abusive, discriminatory or defamatory comments. 

• Coercive or self-serving citation requests. 

• Unauthorised delegation or unapproved AI use that compromises confidentiality or expert accountability. 

• Submitting fabricated, plagiarised, irrelevant or substantially AI-generated review reports. 

Where reviewer misconduct is suspected, ARCC may disregard the report, request an explanation, remove the reviewer from the manuscript or reviewer network, correct affected editorial records, restrict future reviewing activity, or notify an institution or other appropriate body where warranted. The reviewer should be given a fair opportunity to respond. 

ARCC may recognise reviewer contributions through certificates, reviewer profiles, service acknowledgements, training opportunities or other programmes, subject to reviewer consent and the confidentiality of individual manuscripts. 

Recognition should reflect the quality, timeliness, reliability, expertise and ethical conduct of reviews. The number of completed reviews alone does not qualify a reviewer for appointment to an editorial board. Editorial-board appointments require a separate assessment of expertise, independence, integrity, contribution, conflicts of interest and journal needs. 

Reviewers are encouraged to use ARCC guidance and training resources and to seek clarification from the editor whenever a policy, ethical or methodological issue is uncertain.

ARCC retains appropriate records of reviewer invitations, identity and conflict checks, review reports, correspondence, deadlines, editorial use of reports, misconduct concerns and reviewer recognition in accordance with its record-management and privacy requirements. 

ARCC periodically reviews and updates this policy to reflect changes in peer review practice, publication ethics, technology, law and internationally recognised scholarly publishing standards. The latest version published on the ARCC website applies to current review activity. 

Last reviewed: June 2026

This page should be read with the ARCC Peer Review Process, Role of Editor, Publication Ethics Policy, Author Guidelines, Open Access Policy, Article Processing Charges Policy, Copyright and Licensing Policy, and Special Issue Policy. 

For guidance on conflicts, confidentiality, AI use, ethical concerns, deadlines or co-reviewing, reviewers should contact the assigned editor or the ARCC Editorial Office through the official support channels on the ARCC Journals website.