Reviewer's Responsibilities
Reviewers for the Annals of Clinical Hypertension (ACH) play a vital role in maintaining the scientific quality and ethical integrity of published research. Their expert assessments ensure that only manuscripts meeting the highest standards of originality, rigor, and relevance are accepted. This section outlines the core responsibilities expected of ACH reviewers.
Reviewers must act with fairness, professionalism, and confidentiality. Their feedback should guide authors toward improving their work while helping editors make informed decisions.
1. Objectivity and Fairness
- Provide evaluations based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, free from personal or professional bias.
- Ensure comments are respectful, constructive, and focused on the research, not the author(s).
- Avoid disparaging or inappropriate language in review reports.
2. Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared with colleagues, discussed publicly, or used for personal research without prior editorial permission. Confidentiality obligations extend indefinitely, even after the review is completed.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest—financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal—that may compromise objectivity. If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the assignment promptly.
3. Timeliness
- Accept review assignments only when they can be completed within the specified timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks).
- Inform the editorial office immediately if delays are unavoidable, so alternate reviewers may be assigned.
4. Thoroughness of Evaluation
Reviewers are expected to provide detailed, evidence-based feedback that assists both authors and editors. Reports should identify major and minor issues clearly and suggest improvements where possible.
- Major Issues: Conceptual flaws, methodological weaknesses, ethical concerns.
- Minor Issues: Grammar, clarity, formatting, or referencing improvements.
- Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct.
- Request access to raw data only when necessary to validate findings.
- Support adherence to human/animal ethics and informed consent standards.
5. Professional Conduct
- Engage respectfully with authors, even when recommending rejection.
- Avoid personal criticism; focus feedback on the research content.
- Provide balanced reviews that recognize strengths as well as weaknesses.
6. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewer reports form the foundation of editorial decisions. While editors make the final judgment, reviewers must provide candid and constructive input that helps determine whether manuscripts meet ACH’s publication standards.
Reviewers are guardians of research integrity. By upholding confidentiality, objectivity, and professionalism, they ensure that ACH continues to publish high-quality, credible, and ethically sound research in clinical hypertension.