Reviewer's Responsibilities

1. Fulfilling the Purpose of Peer Review

Reviewers must ensure that:

• The research is scientifically valid and ethically conducted
• The methodology is transparent and reproducible
• The conclusions are supported by data
• The manuscript contributes meaningful insights to the field
• Errors, gaps, and inconsistencies are identified

By providing critical analysis, reviewers help authors refine their work and contribute to the scientific community’s advancement.

2. Accepting Review Assignments Responsibly

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must evaluate whether:

• The manuscript aligns with their expertise
• They can complete the review within the deadline
• No conflicts of interest exist
• They can dedicate adequate time to a thorough evaluation

If a reviewer feels unqualified or unavailable, they should decline promptly to avoid delays.

3. Maintaining Strict Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

• Treat all manuscript content as confidential
• Not share manuscripts or discuss them with colleagues
• Not use unpublished data for any purpose
• Not contact the authors directly

Confidentiality remains binding indefinitely, even after completing the review.

4. Declaring Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts include:

• Personal or professional relationships with authors
• Financial interests in the study outcome
• Competing research in progress
• Recent collaboration or co-authorship (within 3 years)
• Supervisory or subordinate relationships

Reviewers must disclose conflicts immediately and decline the review when necessary.

5. Conducting an Objective Evaluation

Reviewer comments must be:

• Evidence-based
• Objective and unbiased
• Clear and specific
• Respectful and constructive

Personal criticism, emotional language, or vague statements are unacceptable in ethical peer review.

6. Providing Constructive and Actionable Feedback

High-quality reviewer comments:

• Identify strengths and weaknesses
• Highlight methodological issues
• Suggest improvements without imposing personal preference
• Address clarity, logic, and organization
• Differentiate between major and minor revisions

Constructive example:

“The statistical analysis appears appropriate; however, please clarify how missing data were handled and whether sensitivity analyses were performed.”

Unhelpful example:

“The statistics don’t make sense. Rewrite everything.”

Reviewers should support authors in strengthening the manuscript.

7. Identifying Ethical and Scientific Misconduct

Reviewers must alert editors to potential issues such as:

• Plagiarism or excessive text overlap
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Image manipulation
• Improper authorship practices
• Ethical approval concerns
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Reviewers should not investigate suspected misconduct themselves but report concerns confidentially to the editors.

8. Using Confidential Information Responsibly

Reviewers must not:

• Use unpublished data for personal research
• Exploit ideas or findings for competitive advantage
• Share manuscript content with students or colleagues
• Upload manuscript text to AI or third-party systems

Intellectual property must remain protected at all times.

9. Recommending an Editorial Decision

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Recommendations should reflect:

• Scientific rigor
• Ethical compliance
• Significance of findings
• Clarity and originality

Editors make the final decision, but reviewer recommendations are essential input.

10. Completing Reviews on Time

Timeliness is essential for maintaining an efficient publication workflow. Reviewers agree to:

• Meet agreed deadlines
• Request extensions only when necessary
• Promptly decline reviews they cannot complete

Delays may disadvantage authors and affect journal credibility.

11. Use of AI Tools in Review Work

Reviewers may use AI tools for:

• Grammar correction
• Language polishing

Reviewers must not use AI tools for:

• Analyzing manuscript content
• Generating review reports
• Summarizing confidential text
• Assessing data or images

Using AI improperly may violate confidentiality and ethical standards.

12. Responsibilities After Submitting the Review

Reviewers must:

• Destroy manuscript files and notes
• Avoid discussing the manuscript with others
• Report new concerns if discovered post-review
• Respect ongoing confidentiality obligations

The reviewer’s role does not end with submission of the evaluation.

13. Example Review Structure

APMH encourages reviewers to follow a structured format:

Structured feedback improves clarity and supports fair editorial decisions.

14. Ethical Examples and Scenarios

Ethical scenario

A reviewer realizes they collaborated with one of the authors five years ago. Although outside the formal three-year conflict window, they inform the editor to ensure unbiased evaluation.

Unethical scenario

A reviewer recommends rejection because the manuscript challenges their own published findings, despite sound methodology.

15. Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

APMH acknowledges reviewer contributions through:

• Reviewer certificates
• Editorial board invitations for consistent excellence
• Annual public recognition (with reviewer consent)
• Eligibility for Reviewer Excellence Awards

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the journal’s scholarly excellence.

Conclusion

Reviewers at APMH uphold the highest standards of scientific rigor, ethics, and professionalism. Their thoughtful evaluations and constructive insights ensure that published research is reliable, ethical, and valuable to mental health science. By fulfilling these responsibilities with integrity and diligence, reviewers contribute meaningfully to global psychiatric scholarship and strengthen the scientific record for future generations.