Reviewer Management

ACADEMIA Health Sphere Journal (AHSJ)
https://academia.edu.pk/index.php/hsj

At ACADEMIA Health Sphere Journal (AHSJ), effective reviewer management is essential to ensuring a peer review process that is fair, ethical, scientifically rigorous, and timely. Through our double-blind system, every manuscript is reviewed by qualified experts in health sciences, medicine, and public health to ensure constructive, unbiased evaluations that support research excellence.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

Subject Expertise
Reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials and expertise in areas such as:

  • Clinical Medicine

  • Public Health

  • Epidemiology

  • Health Policy and Management

  • Nursing and Allied Health

  • Biostatistics and Research Methodology

  • Global and Community Health

Selection Criteria Include:

  • Peer-reviewed publications

  • Experience in health research design and analysis

  • Active engagement in academia or clinical practice

Diversity and Representation
AHSJ encourages diversity in its reviewer pool by including professionals from different regions, institutions, career stages, and gender identities to ensure an inclusive and globally relevant review process.

Invitation to Review
Reviewers are formally invited with the manuscript title, abstract, and expected review deadline (typically 2–4 weeks). A conflict of interest disclosure form is included. Reviewers may accept or decline based on expertise and availability.

Reviewer Database Maintenance
The AHSJ reviewer database is regularly updated through:

  • Editorial board nominations

  • Recommendations from authors and peers

  • Conference participation and research trends

  • Citation and publication record analysis

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

Double-Blind Peer Review
AHSJ follows a strict double-blind process, ensuring anonymity for both reviewers and authors to maintain objectivity and eliminate bias.

Balanced Workload Distribution
Manuscript assignments are monitored to prevent reviewer overload and ensure timely responses. The editorial team strives to distribute reviews equitably across the reviewer base.

Mentorship and Inclusivity
AHSJ supports new reviewers and early-career researchers by providing editorial mentorship and review guidelines to help them contribute effectively.

3. Reviewer Expectations and Guidelines

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to assess:

  • Scientific and clinical relevance

  • Methodological robustness and statistical validity

  • Ethical soundness and informed consent

  • Clarity, organization, and citation quality

  • Relevance to current public health and medical practices

Timeliness
Reviews are expected within 2–4 weeks. Extensions can be requested when needed. Persistent delays may lead to reviewer reassignment.

Confidentiality
All manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not:

  • Share content without permission

  • Use unpublished data for personal purposes

  • Reveal their involvement without editorial approval

Ethical Responsibility
Reviewers must report any:

  • Ethical violations or research misconduct

  • Plagiarism or data manipulation

  • Conflicts of interest that affect objectivity

4. Communication and Support

Editorial Assistance
The editorial team supports reviewers by offering:

  • Clarifications on review criteria

  • Help with technical platform issues

  • Guidance on manuscript structure or ethical concerns

Recognition and Appreciation
To acknowledge contributions, AHSJ:

  • Publishes an annual list of reviewers

  • Issues reviewer certificates upon request

  • May offer editorial board roles to top reviewers

5. Quality Assurance in Peer Review

Performance Monitoring
Reviews are assessed based on:

  • Depth and relevance of critique

  • Professionalism and constructiveness

  • Timely submission of reviews

Low-quality or biased reviews may lead to feedback, mentorship, or removal from the reviewer database.

Handling Conflicting Reviews
If reviewer opinions diverge significantly, the editor may:

  • Request a third review

  • Consult the Editor-in-Chief for a consensus decision

Periodic Review
The editorial board periodically evaluates reviewer performance to maintain high-quality peer review standards.

6. Reviewer Development and Incentives

Training and Guidance
AHSJ promotes reviewer development by offering:

  • Reviewer handbooks and checklists

  • Ethics and peer review webinars

  • Mentorship for early-career reviewers

Reviewer Incentives (under consideration):

  • Priority review for reviewer-authored submissions

  • Discounts on article processing charges (APCs)

  • Access to exclusive editorial resources

7. Managing Conflicts and Misconduct

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Reviewers must disclose:

  • Recent collaborations or affiliations with authors

  • Financial or institutional ties

  • Any situation that may impair objective judgment

Handling Reviewer Misconduct
Violations include:

  • Breach of confidentiality

  • Misuse of manuscript content

  • Biased or unprofessional feedback

Consequences may include:

  • Permanent removal from reviewer database

  • Notification to the reviewer’s institution

  • Referral to ethical bodies (e.g., COPE), if warranted

Conclusion

The AHSJ Reviewer Management Policy is grounded in the principles of fairness, transparency, and academic integrity. By cultivating a diverse, qualified, and ethically responsible reviewer network, AHSJ ensures that each submission receives high-quality, unbiased peer evaluation—strengthening the journal's mission to publish impactful and ethical health sciences research.