Reviewers

Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of Iranian Journal of Health Research and Development (Iran J Health Res Dev). The journal values the contribution of expert reviewers in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts and in supporting fair, evidence-based, and constructive editorial decision-making.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are invited to assess manuscripts within their area of expertise and to provide an independent scholarly evaluation of the scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial quality of the submission. Reviewer reports help editors determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication and help authors improve the quality, clarity, and reliability of their work.

2. Expectations from Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments.

• evaluate the originality, scientific merit, methodological rigor, and clarity of the manuscript.

• assess whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal’s aims and scope.

• identify important strengths and weaknesses in the study design, analysis, interpretation, and reporting.

• indicate whether ethical, methodological, or reporting concerns appear to be present.

• provide clear recommendations to assist editorial decision-making.

• submit their review within the requested time frame, or inform the editorial office promptly if they are unable to do so.

3. Review Criteria

In preparing their reports, reviewers may consider the following questions, as applicable:

• Does the manuscript address a relevant and meaningful research question?

• Is the work original and does it make a useful contribution to the field?

• Is the study design appropriate and scientifically sound?

• Are the methods adequately described and suitable for the objectives of the study?

• Are the results presented clearly and interpreted appropriately?

• Are the conclusions supported by the data?

• Is the manuscript clearly written, logically organized, and adequately referenced?

• Are there any concerns related to ethics, plagiarism, redundant publication, or data integrity?

• Is the manuscript suitable for the journal’s readership and scope?

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts sent for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, share, copy, or use any part of the manuscript or its associated data for personal, academic, professional, or other advantage.

Manuscript content may only be used for the purpose of peer review and must not be retained or circulated outside the review process.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation to review if they have any conflict of interest that could affect—or reasonably be perceived to affect—their ability to provide an impartial assessment. This may include financial, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or personal relationships with the authors, institutions, or subject matter of the manuscript.

If a potential conflict of interest becomes apparent after accepting the invitation, the reviewer should inform the editorial office immediately.

6. Objectivity and Respectful Communication

Reviewer comments should be professional, respectful, and focused on the scholarly content of the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is not appropriate. Comments should be framed in a constructive manner and should, where possible, be supported by clear reasoning or evidence.

The journal encourages reviewers to distinguish between essential revisions, methodological concerns, and optional suggestions for improvement.

7. Ethical and Integrity Concerns

Reviewers are encouraged to alert the editors if they identify any of the following concerns:

• substantial similarity to previously published work.

• suspected plagiarism or redundant publication.

• possible fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of data.

• major methodological flaws affecting the reliability of the findings.

• unethical research conduct or absence of required ethical safeguards.

• inappropriate citation practices.

• other concerns that may affect the integrity or suitability of the manuscript.

Reviewers should communicate such concerns confidentially to the editors and should not contact the authors directly.

8. Use of External Assistance and AI Tools

Reviewers should not share the manuscript with other individuals or seek external assistance in preparing a review without prior permission from the editorial office.

If AI-assisted tools are used in any way to support the review process, reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, integrity, and scholarly quality of their review. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content to tools or services that may compromise manuscript confidentiality or data security.

9. Recommendation to the Editors

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes, subject to the journal’s editorial process:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

10. Recognition of Reviewers

The journal values the contribution of its reviewers and recognizes peer review as an essential scholarly service. Reviewer activity may be acknowledged by the journal in accordance with its editorial practices and confidentiality requirements.

11. Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers and academics with relevant expertise in medical sciences, public health, healthcare research, and related interdisciplinary areas may be considered for inclusion in the journal’s reviewer pool. Individuals who wish to serve as reviewers may contact the editorial office and provide information about their academic background, institutional affiliation, areas of expertise, and recent publications.

12. Commitment to High-Quality Peer Review

Iran J Health Res Dev is committed to maintaining a reviewer community that supports fairness, scientific rigor, confidentiality, and ethical responsibility in peer review. The journal greatly appreciates the time and expertise contributed by reviewers in support of high-quality scholarly publishing.