Reviewers policies

The Archives of Basic and Applied Medicine (ABAM) relies on the expertise and integrity of independent reviewers to ensure the publication of high-quality, scientifically sound, and ethically conducted research. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality, credibility, and academic standards of the journal.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process is designed to evaluate the originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, significance, and clarity of submitted manuscripts. Reviewer recommendations assist editors in making fair and informed editorial decisions while providing constructive feedback to authors.

2. Reviewer Eligibility

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and experience relevant to the manuscript's subject area. The Editorial Office maintains a diverse and qualified reviewer database to ensure appropriate expertise for each submission.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with others without prior editorial permission.
  • Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
  • Discuss manuscript contents outside the peer-review process.

Confidentiality must be maintained before, during, and after the review process.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. Reviewers should decline invitations if conflicts may compromise their objectivity, including:

  • Financial interests
  • Institutional affiliations
  • Collaborative relationships
  • Personal relationships
  • Competitive interests

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Conduct reviews objectively, fairly, and professionally.
  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit.
  • Provide constructive, respectful, and evidence-based comments.
  • Avoid discriminatory or offensive language.
  • Respect authors regardless of nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, or institutional affiliation.

6. Timeliness

Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to submit their reviews within the requested timeframe. If additional time is needed or the review cannot be completed, reviewers should notify the Editorial Office promptly.

7. Quality of Reviews

Review reports should be:

  • Objective and unbiased.
  • Scientifically sound.
  • Clear and well-reasoned.
  • Constructive and helpful.
  • Supported by appropriate evidence where applicable.

Recommendations should clearly explain both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

8. Detection of Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should promptly inform the Editor if they identify possible:

  • Plagiarism
  • Duplicate publication
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Image manipulation
  • Ethical concerns involving human or animal research
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Citation manipulation

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or any part of their content to publicly available artificial intelligence (AI) tools or language models that may compromise confidentiality. AI tools may only be used in accordance with the journal's confidentiality requirements and applicable publisher policies.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Final publication decisions are made solely by the Editor and are based on reviewer recommendations together with the journal's editorial assessment.

11. Recognition of Reviewers

The journal values the voluntary contribution of reviewers to the scientific community. Reviewer identities are handled according to the journal's peer-review model, and recognition may be provided in accordance with journal policies while maintaining confidentiality where applicable.

12. Misconduct by Reviewers

Any breach of reviewer responsibilities, including confidentiality violations, conflicts of interest, misuse of unpublished information, biased reviews, or unethical conduct, may result in removal from the journal's reviewer database and other appropriate actions.

 

The Archives of Basic and Applied Medicine (ABAM) is committed to a fair, rigorous, confidential, and transparent peer-review process that supports scientific integrity, ethical publishing, and the advancement of high-quality medical research.