Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

AHQAQ, a platform dedicated to [insert AHQAQ's mission statement], values the contributions of its reviewers in maintaining the quality and relevance of its content. This Peer Review Policy outlines the principles and procedures for reviewers to ensure fair, consistent, and constructive evaluation of submissions.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Objectivity and Fairness: Reviewers should assess submissions based solely on their academic merit, originality, and relevance to AHQAQ's mission and scope, without bias towards the author's origin, affiliation, or personal beliefs.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submissions and any associated information. They should not discuss the content of submissions with anyone except the editors and editorial staff.
  • Expertise: Reviewers should possess the necessary expertise in the relevant field to provide qualified and insightful feedback. They should disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as collaborations or personal relationships with the authors, that may affect their objectivity.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers should submit their reviews within the designated timeframe to avoid delays in the publication process.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be written in a professional and respectful manner, providing clear and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Reviews should focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the submission, offering suggestions for improvement while maintaining a positive and encouraging tone.

3. Review Process

  • Reviewer Selection: Editors will select reviewers based on their expertise and familiarity with the subject matter of the submission.
  • Double-Blind Review: Whenever possible, AHQAQ employs a double-blind review process, where reviewers' identities are concealed from the authors and vice versa.
  • Review Form: Reviewers will be provided with a standardized review form to guide their evaluation, covering aspects such as originality, significance, methodology, results, discussion, and overall quality.
  • Decision-Making: Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editors will make the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the submission. Editors may seek additional reviews if necessary.