American Research Journals, Inc. follow double blind independent peer review system, as know that peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the quality and integrity of the academic record. The peer review process relies heavily on the trust and voluntary participation of the academic community and requires responsible behavior and ethical conduct on the part of everyone involved.

As an academic publisher, we adhere to COPE's guidelines and have to follow who agreed to review for our manuscript. As a Reviewer, you should have:

Professional Responsibility:  As an independent reviewer, you should provide the journal with an accurate and fair presentation of your personal and professional information, including accurate and verifiable contact information, i.e., the qualification and name of the demographic region to which you belong.

Competing Interests: Be sure to indicate any competing or conflicting interests. If you are unsure of a potential competing interest, it may prevent you from checking it. It may be of a personal or professional in nature.

Timeliness:  You should be courteous to respond to a peer review invitation within a reasonable time, even if it cannot conduct the review. If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should accept the review only, if you can return it within the proposed or mutually agreed deadline.

Confidentiality: Reviewers' comments on the manuscript shall remain confidential should not share with authors for professional or personal benefit.
Reviewers shall not retain the manuscript after the review process has already completed.

Bias and Competing Interests: Reviewers should disclose to the editor any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinion of the manuscript and avoid reviewing a manuscript if potential bias exists. Peer reviewers should not use their knowledge of the article under review to their own advantage prior to publication.

Appropriate feedback: Each journal editor expects a clear, objective and unbiased evaluation of the merits and limitations of the manuscript. Most journals allow reviewers to send confidential comments to the editor, as well as comments that can be read by the authors and the journal may also request a recommendation for acceptance/rejection; any recommendation must be compliance with the comments in the review.

Suspicion of Ethics Violations: If you have observed misconduct in research and publication, you should inform the editor of the journal during the assessment process, cooperate confidentially with the journal, but not continue the research, unless the journal requests additional information or advice.

Reviewer Selection

It is based on areas of interest, availability, research field through the editorial office. In some cases, the editor is supported in terms of selecting the reviewer. The editorial office ensures that there won’t be any bias related to the review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Conveniently providing unprejudiced input on the insightful benefits and the logical estimation of the research study.
• Checking production quality, originality in a concise manner.
• No personal criticisms are allowed throughout the process and only constructive comments related to the article.
• Maintain confidentiality in the review process.
• No materials of any manuscript are circulated with clear permission from the editorial office or editorial board.
• Kindly don’t rewrite any content without editor or author approval; any changes should be circulated through the Editor - in - Chief and Editorial Office.
• Don't purposefully drag out the review process, either by postponing the accommodation of your review or by asking for superfluous extra data from the author or journal office.
• Respect the confidentiality of the review and don't uncover information of the article after the review process unless you have permission from the author or editorial office.

Steps to Process Initiation: Inspecting Original Paper, Supplement files

• Accept
• Revise (Minor/Major)
• Resubmit/Transfer
• Reject
• Final Decision

Reviewer Feedback

• Prepare your constructive response based on our feedback form for the author. Be objective and productive in your audit, giving criticism that will assist the author in improving their original copy.
• Don’t include any other reviewer comments without Editorial Office approval.
• Provide a clear, concise, constructive comment with proper reason.

Benefits for Reviewers

• All reviewers are entitled to receive a 50% discount on the publication of their article as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd author. Any participation in your presence in any article will receive this offer.
• Reviewer Awards and Certificates.