If you have been invited to review a manuscript and would like more information on the peer review procedure, please read this page. We encourage reviewers to update themselves with more/new guidelines to ensure a fair review process.

1. Reviewer Criteria

The selection of reviewers is initiated by the article authors who suggest potential candidates (while the editorial team verifies their qualifications), the editorial team, or other experts.

According to our criteria, reviewers should have a doctoral degree (PhD/MD/MBBS or equivalent), unless they are in scholarly disciplines where doctorates are not necessary, or if they have a demonstrable public record of expertise. Reviewers should also have published at least three articles as lead authors on a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last five years, to be considered an expert. However, in fields where a reviewer's expertise is not typically measured by their publication record, or if their expertise can be demonstrated in ways other than their publication record, please provide an explanation of their suitability. In cases where a suggested reviewer is not qualified, the editorial team may suggest that their Principal Investigator/Supervisor is invited instead, and the original person could then take the role of co-reviewer.

Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the review process and not disclose any information about the manuscript or the review process to any third party without explicit permission from the journal. This includes not discussing the article with colleagues or using the content of the article in their own work until it has been published. Reviewers should not retain copies of the manuscript after submitting their review. Any breaches of confidentiality can lead to sanctions being imposed.

2. Peer reviewer code of conduct

At JAPR, we highly value the essential role of the peer review process in scholarly publishing, and we are grateful for the valuable time and effort that our reviewers dedicate to it. To maintain a constructive and beneficial peer review experience for authors, readers, and other reviewers, we kindly request that our reviewers:

• Read the entire article, including any associated figures, tables, and data.
• Provide a thorough review that discusses both the article as a whole and individual points, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the article.
• Offer specific comments that include as much detail as possible and references where appropriate, so that the authors can fully address any issues.
• Provide constructive criticism without derogatory comments or tone, ensuring that the focus is on the scientific content of the article and not the authors themselves.
• Review as you would like to be reviewed, maintaining a respectful and professional tone throughout the review.

Furthermore, JAPR encourages all reviewers to read COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and review manuscripts based on these guidelines.

3. Writing the Review

Reviewers are requested to provide a comprehensive report reflecting their evaluation of the article, with constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement, while ensuring that the review is written in clear Persian (or English, if the language of the manuscript is English). If any further clarification or details are needed, the editorial team will be in touch with the reviewer. The peer review form includes mandatory questions that vary based on the type of article being reviewed. Reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests.