Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers are essential partners in maintaining scientific rigor and ensuring the credibility of the Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH). Their evaluations help determine whether manuscripts are methodologically sound, ethically compliant, clearly written, and valuable to the advancement of mental health research. These guidelines outline reviewer responsibilities, ethical expectations, evaluation criteria, and best practices to ensure a high-quality peer review process.

APMH follows a double-blind peer-review model. Reviewer identity is confidential and must remain undisclosed at all times.

1. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, evidence-based assessments
  • Evaluate manuscripts within the designated timeframe
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all materials
  • Declare conflicts of interest immediately
  • Offer constructive comments to help authors improve their manuscripts
  • Identify ethical issues, methodological flaws, or reporting inconsistencies
  • Ensure fairness regardless of author identity or affiliation

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to adhere to the highest ethical and scholarly standards.

2. Confidentiality Requirements

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. This means:

  • Not sharing, discussing, or distributing manuscript content
  • Not using any data or ideas from the manuscript for personal research
  • Not attempting to identify the authors
  • Not contacting authors directly for any reason

Confidentiality extends beyond the review period and remains binding indefinitely.

3. Ethical Standards for Reviewers

Reviewers must perform their evaluations ethically by:

  • Avoiding bias related to personal beliefs or relationships
  • Declining to review manuscripts outside their expertise
  • Providing respectful, professional comments—even when critical
  • Not suggesting unnecessary citations to their own work
  • Reporting any suspected plagiarism or ethical concerns

Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring trust in the peer-review process.

4. Identifying Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest include:

  • Personal or professional relationships with authors
  • Direct competition in research
  • Financial interests connected to the manuscript topic
  • Recent collaboration with the authors
  • Supervisory or subordinate relationships

If any conflict exists, reviewers must decline the invitation.

5. Evaluating the Manuscript

Reviewers should assess:

  • Originality – Does the study provide new insights or methodologies?
  • Significance – Is the research important for psychiatry and mental health?
  • Scientific rigor – Are methods robust, valid, and described clearly?
  • Ethical compliance – Are ethics approval, consent, and compliance statements included?
  • Clarity of presentation – Is the manuscript well-structured and coherent?
  • Statistical validity – Are analyses appropriate and correctly interpreted?
  • Data transparency – Is supporting data accessible or well-described?

Reviewers must highlight major and minor issues separately and provide clear suggestions for improvement.

6. Writing Constructive Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should:

  • Be specific and actionable
  • Use neutral, respectful language
  • Explain the reasoning behind critiques
  • Offer suggestions rather than mandates
  • Focus on scientific content, not writing style unless clarity is compromised

Example of constructive feedback:

“The methodology section lacks detail regarding participant recruitment. Please clarify inclusion criteria and how potential confounders were addressed.”

Example of unconstructive feedback:

“This study is poorly written and not worth publishing.”

Reviewers should avoid emotional language, personal opinions, or vague criticism.

7. Recommending Decisions

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Editors rely on reviewer recommendations but make independent final decisions. Reviewers should not communicate acceptance expectations directly to authors.

8. Recognizing Misconduct

Reviewers should report concerns involving:

  • Plagiarism
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Inappropriate image manipulation
  • Ethical violations involving human or animal subjects
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Reviewers must not investigate misconduct directly; instead, they should inform the editor confidentially.

9. Timeliness and Review Deadlines

Reviewers must:

  • Accept reviews only if they can meet deadlines
  • Request deadline extensions promptly when needed
  • Submit thorough reviews in a timely manner

Delays in review slow the publication process and may disadvantage authors.

10. Use of AI Tools in Review

Reviewers may use AI tools for:

  • Grammar correction
  • Language refinement

But must not use AI tools for:

  • Generating review content
  • Summarizing confidential manuscript content
  • Analyzing unpublished data
  • Sharing manuscript text with external systems

Reviewers are fully accountable for all statements and judgments in their reviews.

11. Ethical Examples for Reviewers

Ethical Scenario

A reviewer realizes midway through reading that they collaborated with one of the authors three years ago. They immediately inform the editor and withdraw from the review.

Unethical Scenario

A reviewer uses unpublished data from the manuscript to develop a competing research project.

Ethical behavior ensures fairness and respect for intellectual property.

12. Reviewer Reports: Structure and Expectations

APMH recommends that reviewer reports include:

  • Summary: One paragraph summarizing the manuscript
  • Major Comments: Significant methodological or conceptual concerns
  • Minor Comments: Clarifications, typographical notes, or formatting issues
  • Recommendation: Accept, revise, or reject

Reports must be coherent, organized, and consistently formatted.

13. Post-Review Responsibilities

After submitting a review, reviewers must:

  • Delete manuscript files from personal devices
  • Refrain from discussing manuscript contents
  • Report any ethical concerns discovered later

Confidential information must never be retained or shared.

14. Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers contribute valuable time and expertise. APMH acknowledges reviewer contributions through:

  • Annual reviewer appreciation lists (with permission)
  • Certificates of review
  • Opportunities to join editorial boards
  • Consideration for Outstanding Reviewer Awards

Ethical reviewers strengthen the journal’s reputation and scientific impact.

Conclusion

Reviewer participation is a cornerstone of scientific scholarship. By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers support the integrity, quality, and fairness of the peer-review process. The Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH) values every reviewer’s contribution and encourages excellence, professionalism, and ethical conduct in all evaluations.