Reviewers

Reviewers Page

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, JHS' Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. JHS adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair, and also ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, JHS needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts within 2-4 weeks after the time they accepted to review. Maintaining JHS as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.


Reviewers' Responsibilities

If you have been invited by JHS's Editor-in-Chief to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

1. Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work

2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary

3. Providing all required information within established deadlines

4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal

5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review

6. Reporting possible research misconducts

7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons

8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document

9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript

10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors

11. Not identifying themselves to authors

12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer

13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work

14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge

15. Writing review report in fluent English only

16. Checking novelty, originality, scientific reliability, valuable contribution to the science, ethical aspects, appropriate grammar, punctuation and spelling, appropriate citation and probable scientific misconduct in the submitted article.

17. Checking the structure of the article submitted and its accordance with the authors’ guidelines

 

What Should Be Checked While Reviewing a Manuscript?

1. Novelty

2. Originality

3. Scientific reliability

4. Valuable contribution to the science

5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study

6. Ethical aspects

7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines

8. References provided to substantiate the content

9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling

10. Scientific misconduct

 

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Journal Peer Review Process

When reviewing a manuscript, it must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not upload any part of the manuscript to generative AI tools, as this may violate confidentiality and proprietary rights, and potentially breach data privacy.

This confidentiality also applies to the peer review report, which may contain sensitive information. Reviewers should not use AI tools to improve the language or readability of their reports.

Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process, requiring human judgment. Generative AI should not be used for scientific review, as it may produce incorrect or biased conclusions. Reviewers are responsible for their review content.

Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz press’s policy allows authors to use AI for language and readability improvements before submission, with proper disclosure. Reviewers can find this disclosure in a separate section before the references.

 

Key Points

Manuscripts must be treated as confidential.

Do not upload manuscripts or review reports to AI tools.

Peer review requires human judgment; AI should not be used for scientific review.

Reviewers are responsible for their review content.

Authors can use AI for language improvements with proper disclosure.

AI technologies that support the editorial process must respect confidentiality and data privacy.