Reviewer Guidelines

Essential guidelines for peer reviewers evaluating HIV/AIDS manuscripts for JCRHAP.

Reviewers provide expert evaluation of submitted HIV manuscripts to support editorial decision-making. Key responsibilities include assessing scientific merit and providing constructive feedback to authors.

• Evaluate the scientific rigor and methodology of submitted HIV research
• Assess the novelty and significance of findings for HIV/AIDS science
• Identify strengths and weaknesses clearly and constructively
• Provide specific recommendations for improving HIV manuscripts
• Complete reviews within agreed timelines, typically two to three weeks
• Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content and reviewer identity

Before accepting a review invitation, consider whether you have appropriate HIV expertise, available time, and no conflicts of interest. Decline invitations promptly if you cannot provide quality review, allowing editors to invite alternative reviewers.

Evaluate HIV submissions based on the following criteria to provide comprehensive manuscript assessment.

• Scientific validity: Are HIV methods appropriate and conclusions supported?
• Originality: Does the work contribute new knowledge to HIV/AIDS research?
• Significance: Will findings impact HIV clinical practice or future research?
• Clarity: Is the HIV manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
• Ethics: Does the research meet ethical standards for HIV studies?

Provide respectful, constructive comments focused on improving research rather than criticizing authors. Be specific about concerns with concrete suggestions. Balance criticism with recognition of manuscript strengths. Avoid personal comments.

Manuscript content is confidential before publication. Do not share manuscripts, use submitted data for personal research, or discuss submissions with others. Report suspected ethics violations to the editorial office.