Reviewer Management

ACADEMIA International Journal of Clinical & Translational Health (AIJCTH)

Overview

At AIJCTH, a structured and ethically grounded reviewer management system is essential to our mission of upholding academic integrity, scientific rigor, and editorial transparency. Our double-blind peer review model ensures that all submissions are evaluated fairly, objectively, and in a timely manner by qualified experts in clinical and translational medicine.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

Subject Expertise

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in relevant clinical and biomedical fields, including but not limited to:

  • Internal Medicine and Primary Care

  • Translational Biomedical Research

  • Public Health and Epidemiology

  • Molecular Diagnostics and Therapeutics

  • Global Health and Healthcare Systems

  • Surgery, Nursing, and Allied Health

Selection criteria include:

  • Academic qualifications and research experience

  • Record of peer-reviewed publications

  • Familiarity with clinical trial protocols, epidemiological methods, or laboratory research

  • Understanding of both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies

Diversity and Representation

AIJCTH actively cultivates a diverse reviewer pool across regions, disciplines, genders, and academic stages. This ensures balanced scholarly evaluation and enhances global inclusivity in healthcare research.

Reviewer Invitation

Invitations include:

  • Manuscript title and abstract

  • Estimated time to complete the review (typically 2–4 weeks)

  • Disclosure and declaration of any conflicts of interest

Reviewers may accept or decline based on availability and relevance to their expertise.

Reviewer Database

AIJCTH maintains and expands its reviewer database through:

  • Literature searches and citation networks

  • Recommendations from editorial board members

  • Academic conferences and reviewer referrals

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

Double-Blind Review Model

AIJCTH adheres to a double-blind peer review process where:

  • Author and reviewer identities are kept confidential

  • Objectivity is maintained and bias minimized

Workload Distribution

The editorial office monitors reviewer workloads to ensure quality and prevent over-assignment.

Inclusivity and Mentorship

AIJCTH integrates early-career researchers alongside senior reviewers to promote mentorship, peer learning, and a stronger academic community.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Guidelines

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and scientific contribution

  • Appropriateness of study design and methodology

  • Statistical soundness and clarity of results

  • Clinical or translational relevance

  • Adherence to ethical standards and proper citation practices

Timeliness

Reviews should be submitted within 2–4 weeks. Reviewers needing more time should inform the editorial office promptly.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

  • Not share or disclose manuscript content

  • Not use unpublished data for any purpose

  • Maintain strict confidentiality at all times

Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers should report:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication

  • Data fabrication, manipulation, or ethical violations

  • Any real or perceived conflicts of interest

4. Communication and Support

Editorial Support

Editors are available to:

  • Clarify evaluation expectations

  • Assist with technical or procedural issues

  • Mediate in case of reviewer concerns or ethical conflicts

Reviewer Recognition

AIJCTH acknowledges the valuable contributions of its reviewers through:

  • Certificates of appreciation (upon request)

  • Annual public recognition on the journal website

  • Invitations to join the editorial board for top-performing reviewers

5. Quality Assurance in Peer Review

Performance Monitoring

Reviewers are evaluated based on:

  • Depth and accuracy of the review

  • Constructive tone and professionalism

  • Timeliness of submission

Poor-quality reviews or repeated non-compliance may result in removal from the reviewer panel.

Handling Divergent Reviews

If reviewer feedback is significantly conflicting:

  • A third reviewer may be assigned

  • The Editor-in-Chief may make a balanced, independent decision

Ongoing Evaluation

Reviewer performance is periodically assessed. High-performing reviewers are prioritized for future assignments and editorial opportunities.

6. Reviewer Development and Incentives

Capacity Building

AIJCTH supports reviewer development through:

  • Reviewer training resources and webinars

  • Ethics and peer review best practice guidelines

  • Opportunities for mentorship and editorial collaboration

Future Incentives (In Development)

AIJCTH is working to introduce:

  • APC (Article Processing Charge) discounts for reviewers

  • Priority manuscript processing for reviewer-authored papers

  • Access to select academic tools and platforms

7. Managing Conflicts and Misconduct

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

All reviewers must disclose:

  • Financial or institutional affiliations

  • Past or current collaboration with the authors

  • Any competitive or personal bias

Manuscripts are reassigned if a conflict is identified.

Misconduct Policy

Reviewer misconduct includes:

  • Breach of confidentiality

  • Unprofessional or biased commentary

  • Unauthorized use of manuscript content

Confirmed cases are subject to disciplinary action, which may include:

  • Removal from the reviewer pool

  • Notification of affiliated institutions

  • Reporting to COPE or relevant oversight bodies

Conclusion

The ACADEMIA International Journal of Clinical & Translational Health upholds the highest standards in reviewer management—grounded in transparency, accountability, and scholarly professionalism. By fostering a collaborative and ethical peer review culture, AIJCTH ensures the publication of high-quality, clinically impactful research.