Guidelines of Reviewers

The quality of an article published by ARMHS depends on the quality of the review work done by the journal’s peer reviewers.  Without the critical role of a reviewer, quality and timeliness may be compromised in the publication process. We accordingly expect our reviewers to provide timely review reports, being fair and unbiased to the authors in the process. The following guidelines are expected to be adhered to by the  reviewers in their reviews:

1. A reviewer provides recommendations on any manuscript received, within 14 days from the day acknowledgment of the manuscript was received. Otherwise, contact the Editor-in-Chief immediately, if the deadline will not be met.
2. All communications between the editorial board and the reviewer are confidential and are not to be disclosed to the author(s).
3. Reviewers’ recommendations and comments should be courteous and encouraging, devoid of bias and pedantry.
4. Reviewers’ are expected to identify the strengths of a manuscript and the areas for necessary improvement(s).
5. A reviewer should evaluate any manuscript based on the following criteria:
   1. Significance of the study.
   2. Suitability of title or topic
   3. Originality and logical flow.
   4. Literature review quality and citations
   5. Relevance of framework/model/theory (if applicable)
   6. Quality and suitability of research design and methodology
   7. Quality of analysis and discussion
   8. Organization and presentation
   9. Contribution to knowledge.
   10. The overall quality and layout of the paper.
6. All recommendations and comments are sent to the respective authors, and reviewers are encouraged to be objective in their assessments and comments. Reviewers are requested to use everyday language so that authors can easily understand the comments and suggestions.