Peer reviewers contribute to the scientific quality, integrity, rigor, relevance, and credibility of Advances in Healthcare Research (AHR). Reviewers provide independent expert assessments to assist academic editors in evaluating manuscripts and to help authors strengthen scientific clarity, methodological rigor, analytical accuracy, evidence-based interpretation, and the substantive contribution of their research.

AHR welcomes qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the journal's main scholarly scope, including public health, nursing, midwifery, medicine, pharmacy, health psychology, nutrition, health technology, health analysis, medical laboratory sciences, health information systems, medical records, health informatics, health law, hospital management, healthcare administration, healthcare governance, and related interdisciplinary health research.

Reviews should be objective, constructive, confidential, independent, respectful, proportionate, and evidence-based. Reviewer recommendations inform academic editorial evaluation but remain advisory. Final scientific-editorial responsibility rests with the responsible academic editor and, where applicable, the Chief Executive Editor.

AHR applies double-anonymous peer review. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate scientific, clinical, healthcare, theoretical, conceptual, and/or methodological expertise.

Authors submit a Blinded Manuscript separately from the Title Page & Author Information Form. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers must not attempt to identify anonymized authors, request unauthorized access to identifying information, or circumvent the confidentiality of the review process.

The normal scientific-editorial pathway is Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision. Where a manuscript is accepted, it subsequently enters the applicable post-acceptance administrative, copyediting, proofreading, production, metadata-verification, and publication processes.

AHR accepts two manuscript types only: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper. Both types are evaluated according to their stated scientific purpose, methodological characteristics, available evidence, relevant healthcare context, and appropriate standards of scholarly rigor.

Research Paper: Original empirical, clinical, healthcare, epidemiological, laboratory-based, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, technological, behavioral, or otherwise systematically designed research using quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, longitudinal, cross-sectional, comparative, case-based, development-and-validation, computational, or other defensible original-research approaches.

Literature Review Paper: A rigorous scholarly review using an explicitly identified and sufficiently transparent narrative, integrative, systematic, scoping, structured, bibliometric, meta-analytical, evidence-synthesis, theory-oriented, concept-oriented, or other defensible literature-review approach that provides substantive synthesis and a meaningful contribution to scientific or healthcare knowledge.

Manuscript-Type Principle: Research designs, clinical or laboratory procedures, analytical techniques, data sources, software, review methods, theoretical contributions, and conceptual contributions do not constitute separate manuscript categories. Conceptual Papers are not accepted as a separate manuscript type. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts according to the requirements appropriate to their actual research or review design.

The reviewer's primary responsibility is to assess the manuscript's originality, scientific relevance, theoretical or conceptual foundation, research or review methodology, analysis or synthesis, interpretation, research ethics, scientific integrity, evidence quality, clinical or healthcare relevance, and substantive contribution within the current AHR Aims & Scope.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should confirm that the manuscript falls sufficiently within their scientific subject, clinical, healthcare, theoretical, conceptual, and/or methodological expertise; that they can provide an independent, impartial, and evidence-based assessment; that no material conflict of interest exists; and that they can complete the review within the timeframe requested by the AHR Editorial Office.

Reviewers must also be able to comply with AHR confidentiality, reviewer-ethics, scholarly-independence, research-integrity, and applicable healthcare research-ethics requirements. Where expertise is insufficient, a conflict exists, or the requested timeframe cannot reasonably be met, the reviewer should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the responsible academic editor promptly.

Reviewers are not expected to function primarily as copyeditors. Language, formatting, citation presentation, and other editorial issues may be identified when they materially affect scientific understanding or manuscript compliance, but peer review should focus primarily on scientific validity, methodological rigor, research integrity, evidentiary support, relevance, originality, healthcare implications, and substantive contribution.

Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly materials. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, forward, or use unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, underlying scientific or clinical data, research findings, review reports, editorial correspondence, or associated information for personal, professional, commercial, competitive, publication, or research advantage.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly, attempt to identify anonymized authors through internet searches or document metadata, disclose their own identities to circumvent double-anonymous review, or delegate review responsibilities to another person without authorization from the responsible academic editor. Any proposed involvement of another individual must be disclosed and approved in advance.

Relevant financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, clinical, or personal conflicts of interest must be disclosed promptly. When uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, reviewers should explain the circumstances to the responsible academic editor and allow the editor to determine whether continued participation or reassignment is appropriate.

Patient Confidentiality and Sensitive Health Information: Reviewers must respect the privacy, confidentiality, and applicable legal and ethical protections of patients, research participants, healthcare professionals, institutions, and communities. Identifiable patient records, clinical images, personal health data, sensitive participant information, and restricted medical datasets must not be copied, disclosed, or processed outside authorized review arrangements.

Generative AI and Confidentiality: Confidential manuscripts, manuscript extracts, unpublished scientific or clinical data, identifiable patient information, author information, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative-AI systems or external automated services where confidentiality, privacy, consent, copyright, intellectual-property protection, data security, or appropriate information handling cannot be assured.

Any proposed use of external AI-assisted services involving confidential manuscript material requires explicit authorization from the journal and appropriate confidentiality and data-protection safeguards. Reviewers must not assume that the availability of an AI tool constitutes permission to submit confidential scholarly or healthcare materials to that service.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's independent reading, critical analysis, methodological assessment, scientific interpretation, or scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally accountable for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, integrity, and academic justification of their review reports and recommendations.

Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript makes a meaningful scientific or scholarly contribution to at least one field explicitly included in the current AHR Aims & Scope. All recognized AHR healthcare and health-related fields constitute the journal's main scholarly scope and have equal standing. No recognized field is classified as secondary or supplementary merely because it does not directly involve clinical medicine or another particular healthcare discipline.

A manuscript contributing substantively to public health, nursing, midwifery, medicine, pharmacy, health psychology, nutrition, health technology, health analysis, health information systems, medical records, health law, hospital management, or another recognized AHR field must not be considered outside scope solely because it does not integrate an additional clinical, pharmaceutical, technological, or public health variable.

1. Scope Relevance: Does the manuscript address a substantive scientific or scholarly problem within one or more recognized AHR fields? Is the research or review question sufficiently connected to the journal's current Aims & Scope, and is its scientific contribution relevant to the healthcare field being investigated?

2. Originality & Scholarly Contribution: Are the research or review problem, knowledge gap, objectives, originality, novelty, and intended scientific, empirical, clinical, conceptual, methodological, pharmaceutical, technological, public health, healthcare policy, or practical contributions clearly articulated and academically defensible?

3. Literature & Conceptual Foundation: Is the relevant scientific literature appropriately selected, sufficiently current where necessary, critically examined, and logically integrated? Does the manuscript establish an adequate theoretical, conceptual, clinical, or scientific foundation rather than merely presenting definitions or summarizing previous studies without meaningful synthesis?

4. Methodological Rigor: Is the research or review methodology appropriate to the stated objectives, sufficiently transparent, accurately reported, and capable of supporting the reported findings, synthesis, interpretation, and conclusions? Are the study design, research setting, sampling, evidence sources, measurement, clinical or laboratory procedures, analytical techniques, ethical safeguards, and relevant limitations adequately explained where applicable?

5. Research Integrity & Healthcare Ethics: Are there credible concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading data manipulation, inadequate research ethics, missing applicable ethics approval, deficient informed consent, patient confidentiality breaches, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other breaches of scientific and publication ethics?

6. Analysis, Discussion & Interpretation: Are empirical, clinical, laboratory, pharmaceutical, epidemiological, behavioral, or review findings accurately analyzed and meaningfully interpreted in relation to the research question, conceptual or scientific foundation, prior evidence, healthcare context, methodological limitations, and the manuscript's intended contribution? Are scientific uncertainty and possible alternative explanations appropriately considered?

7. Conclusions & Implications: Are the conclusions proportionate to the reported evidence or scholarly synthesis? Are scientific, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, clinical, pharmaceutical, technological, public health, healthcare management, policy, institutional, or practical implications supported by the manuscript rather than overstated? Are causal conclusions, clinical recommendations, or claims of effectiveness justified by the research design and evidence?

8. Writing & Scholarly Presentation: Is the manuscript coherent, understandable, logically structured, and written in appropriate academic English? Are tables, clinical or laboratory figures, scientific terminology, statistical reporting, citations, references, APA 7 presentation, ethical declarations, and scholarly arguments sufficiently accurate and consistent with the official AHR manuscript requirements?

For a Research Paper, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript follows the applicable official AHR manuscript template and presents a coherent progression from scientific problem identification to theoretical or conceptual grounding, research methodology, evidence, interpretation, and conclusions.

Introduction: Does the manuscript establish a clearly articulated scientific or healthcare problem, relevant research context, literature gap, research purpose, novelty, research questions or objectives, and intended contribution? Is the scientific, clinical, public health, methodological, or practical importance of the research explained convincingly?

Review of Literature: Does the manuscript critically evaluate relevant scientific theories, healthcare concepts, clinical frameworks, and prior empirical research? Is the theoretical or conceptual foundation appropriate, and are research models, hypotheses, propositions, or explanatory relationships justified where applicable? Does the review identify meaningful scientific gaps rather than present a descriptive sequence of previous studies?

Research Methodology: Does the manuscript accurately describe the actual research design, study context, population or units of analysis, sampling or participant-selection procedures, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data sources, research instruments, clinical or laboratory procedures, interventions where applicable, measurement, analytical techniques, validity or reliability considerations, and applicable research-ethics procedures? Are ethics approvals, informed consent, clinical trial registration, patient confidentiality, or animal welfare arrangements appropriately documented when required? Can the reported methodology support the findings and conclusions?

Results and Discussion: Under the official AHR Research Paper structure, this is the main section containing distinct scientific functions for reporting research evidence and interpreting its meaning. Reviewers should evaluate both functions independently, even when presented under one principal heading.

4.1 Research Results: Are the empirical or scientific findings presented accurately, transparently, consistently, and with sufficient supporting evidence? Are quantitative, qualitative, clinical, experimental, epidemiological, laboratory, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, computational, comparative, or other applicable analyses reported appropriately? Are relevant statistical estimates, uncertainty measures, scientific measurements, and clinically important outcomes appropriately presented? Are unsupported claims, material omissions, inconsistencies, or selective reporting concerns present?

4.2 Discussion: Does the manuscript interpret the principal findings meaningfully in relation to its theoretical or conceptual foundation, previous scientific studies, healthcare context, and stated contribution? Are agreements, contradictions, unexpected findings, scientific uncertainty, methodological limitations, and applicable clinical, public health, pharmaceutical, technological, healthcare management, policy, or practical implications adequately discussed without merely repeating detailed numerical or laboratory results? Are causal and clinical claims proportionate to the actual study design?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript answer its research objectives, synthesize the principal scientific findings and contribution, acknowledge material limitations, identify relevant healthcare implications, and provide defensible future-research directions? Do conclusions remain consistent with the research design, actual evidence, scope of inference, and degree of scientific certainty?

Evaluation Principle: Research Methodology explains how the research was conducted; Research Results reports what the scientific evidence shows; Discussion interprets the meaning and contribution of the findings; and Conclusion communicates what the study establishes. Reviewers should evaluate scientific adequacy rather than demand unnecessary repetition or changes that conflict with the journal's official manuscript structure.

For a Literature Review Paper, reviewers should evaluate the transparency and appropriateness of the declared review approach, the adequacy and reliability of the scientific literature base, the rigor of evidence appraisal and synthesis where applicable, the scientific significance of the interpretation, and the originality and usefulness of the contribution to healthcare knowledge.

Introduction: Does the review identify a meaningful scientific or healthcare problem, literature gap, research or review objective, and justified rationale for undertaking the synthesis? Is the intended scientific, clinical, methodological, conceptual, public health, or practical contribution sufficiently clear?

Review Methodology: Is the actual review design identified accurately and described transparently? Are the scientific literature sources, database searches, search terms, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, study-selection process, duplicate handling, quality appraisal, risk-of-bias assessment, analytical techniques, and synthesis approach reported where applicable to the review design genuinely conducted? Are methods sufficiently reproducible for the declared type of review?

Review Findings / Literature Synthesis: Does the manuscript move beyond descriptive listing or sequential summaries of publications to identify meaningful scientific themes, healthcare concepts, clinical evidence patterns, theoretical perspectives, methodological developments, conflicting findings, research limitations, unresolved problems, or knowledge gaps? Are the included studies sufficiently appropriate, relevant, and traceable? Is the strength of the accumulated evidence represented accurately?

Discussion: Does the review interpret its synthesis at a substantive scientific and scholarly level? Does it explain what the accumulated healthcare evidence establishes, how the findings extend or challenge existing knowledge, which methodological limitations or scientific disagreements remain, and what theoretical, conceptual, clinical, pharmaceutical, public health, technological, healthcare management, policy, or practical implications can legitimately be drawn? Are implications proportionate to the quality and consistency of the reviewed evidence?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript answer the review objectives, synthesize the principal scientific insights, explain originality and scholarly contribution, acknowledge relevant limitations, and present a focused future-research agenda supported by the reviewed literature?

Review-Methodology Integrity: A manuscript should not be treated as systematic, PRISMA-based, scoping, bibliometric, meta-analytical, database-search-based, or another specialized review simply because the corresponding label appears in the manuscript. Reviewers should assess whether the actual methods, procedures, evidence, and documentation substantiate the claimed design. Specialized reporting guidelines should be applied according to the review methodology actually used.

Bibliometric and Mapping-Based Reviews: Bibliometric mapping, citation-network analysis, co-word analysis, descriptive publication trends, or visualizations alone do not establish an adequate Literature Review Paper contribution. Such methods should support meaningful scientific, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, substantive, or literature-based synthesis and scholarly interpretation relevant to healthcare research.

A high-quality review should distinguish major scientific concerns from minor corrections, explain why each significant issue matters, and provide clear, constructive, sufficiently specific, and actionable recommendations when revision is feasible. Reviewer comments should focus on the manuscript, evidence, methodology, reasoning, scientific interpretation, clinical or healthcare relevance, and contribution rather than on the personal characteristics of the authors.

Personal remarks, insulting or discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, unjustified methodological demands, and requests unrelated to scientific evaluation are inappropriate. Reviewers should evaluate the suitability and limitations of methods actually used rather than automatically require a particular statistical procedure, laboratory technique, clinical design, software package, theoretical model, or review protocol when another defensible approach adequately addresses the research objective.

A clear reviewer report may be organized as Overall Assessment → Major Comments → Minor Comments → Recommendation. Major Comments should address scientific, clinical, methodological, evidentiary, analytical, ethical, interpretive, or contribution-related issues. Minor Comments should address presentation, clarity, terminology, citation formatting, reference consistency, and other corrections that do not materially change the scientific assessment.

Reviewer recommendations may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Reviewers should select the recommendation most consistent with their evidence-based scientific assessment and explain the substantive reasons supporting it. Recommendations should remain proportionate to the significance, scientific consequences, and correctability of the concerns identified.

Editorial Decision Authority: Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial outcome through simple voting. The responsible academic editor considers the manuscript, independent reviewer reports, author responses, revised submission, research-integrity matters, scientific contribution, and applicable AHR policies before reaching or recommending the final scientific-editorial decision.

Where reviewer reports materially disagree, the responsible academic editor may evaluate the reasons for disagreement, request clarification, consult an additional qualified clinical or scientific specialist, or obtain another independent review when necessary. Reviewer disagreement does not automatically require rejection or acceptance.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading manipulation of clinical or laboratory evidence, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misleading methodological claims, missing required ethical approval, inadequate informed consent, patient confidentiality violations, unethical research practices, or other serious scientific-integrity concerns must be reported confidentially to the responsible academic editor.

Reviewers should describe the relevant concerns, supporting evidence, and their potential scientific significance without independently investigating authors, contacting institutions, communicating directly with authors, or making unsupported allegations. The AHR Editorial Office and responsible academic editors determine the appropriate follow-up under the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

Citations should be evaluated for relevance, accuracy, credibility, traceability, and their relationship to the manuscript's scientific or healthcare claims. Reviewers may recommend genuinely relevant sources when there is a clear academic justification, but must not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's publications, AHR publications, a preferred journal, colleague, institution, research group, or other works primarily to increase citation counts.

Reviewers should also identify material inconsistencies between in-text citations and the reference list, incorrect bibliographic information, unsupported clinical or scientific claims, inaccurate DOI information, or references that appear fabricated or substantially misrepresented. References and citations should comply with the journal's APA Style, 7th edition, requirements, with attention to the credibility and relevance of the underlying scientific literature.

Authors may be asked to provide revised manuscripts accompanied by point-by-point responses to reviewer and editorial comments. Reviewers should assess whether the stated responses correspond to actual revisions, whether the supporting scientific evidence is adequate, and whether the manuscript's remaining substantive concerns have been addressed.

Revision-Round Principle: When evaluating revised manuscripts, reviewers should focus primarily on whether previously identified substantive concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Major new requirements should not ordinarily be introduced unless the revision creates a new material issue, new evidence reveals a previously unidentified concern, or a significant scientific, clinical, ethical, or research-integrity problem was reasonably missed during an earlier evaluation.

Reviewers should distinguish unresolved scientific or integrity issues from minor editorial matters that can appropriately be addressed through copyediting, proofreading, formatting, or production after final academic acceptance. Scientific-editorial acceptance must remain independent of administrative and publication-support functions.

Reviewers should respond to review invitations and submit their reports within the timeframe specified by the AHR editorial system or communicated by the responsible academic editor. Timely, carefully considered reviewer participation supports fair editorial administration and responsible scientific evaluation.

If a reviewer requires additional time, encounters a conflict of interest, determines that the manuscript falls outside their scientific or methodological expertise, or becomes unable to complete the review, the Editorial Office should be informed promptly so that an appropriate extension, replacement, or other editorial arrangement can be considered.

Researchers, academics, clinicians, healthcare professionals, and qualified specialists with relevant scientific or methodological expertise may register through the AHR Online Journal System and indicate their willingness to conduct peer review. Prospective reviewers should provide accurate information concerning institutional affiliation, scientific specialization, healthcare research interests, methodological competence, and relevant academic or professional experience.

Registration does not automatically confer public Reviewer Team membership, an active reviewing appointment, or a guaranteed invitation. Reviewer selection is based on manuscript relevance, scientific expertise, independence, availability, review quality, applicable journal requirements, and conflicts-of-interest considerations.

AHR recognizes independent peer reviewing as an important form of scientific and scholarly service. Reviewers contribute their time, specialized healthcare knowledge, clinical or methodological expertise, critical judgment, professional experience, and ethical responsibility to support the accuracy, credibility, integrity, and scientific quality of the journal's published research.

Where administratively available, AHR may provide reviewer acknowledgements, documentation of completed peer-review service,