The peer-review process of Advances in Healthcare Research (AHR) is supported by scholarly expertise relevant to public health, nursing, midwifery, medicine, pharmacy, health psychology, nutrition, health technology, health analysis, health information systems, medical records, health law, hospital management, and other health-related disciplines within the journal's stated Aims & Scope.
Equal Scope Principle: Every healthcare and health-related field recognized in the current AHR Aims & Scope forms part of the journal's main scholarly scope with equal standing. Reviewers are selected according to the specific manuscript's scientific subject, methodological requirements, relevant expertise, independence, and availability rather than a hierarchy among healthcare disciplines.
AHR applies double-anonymous peer review, supported by independent scholarly assessment and responsible editorial oversight. The journal welcomes Research Papers and Literature Review Papers in accordance with its current manuscript requirements. Inclusion in this public reviewer directory does not establish an assignment to any particular manuscript or guarantee a review invitation.
AHR reviewer selection is driven by the manuscript's principal scientific contribution and the expertise required to evaluate its research design, evidence, analysis, clinical or healthcare relevance, interpretation, or literature-review methodology. A substantive contribution to any recognized AHR field is sufficient for scope consideration, provided that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial requirements.
Reviewers are selected according to subject relevance, scientific or methodological competence, independence, availability, and potential financial or non-financial conflicts of interest. Additional specialist reviewers may be invited beyond the public directory where necessary. The responsible academic editor coordinates reviewer assignments and retains responsibility for editorial oversight.
Reviewers provide impartial, evidence-based, constructive, and confidential scientific assessments. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The responsible academic editor or Chief Executive Editor retains authority for scientific-editorial decision-making in accordance with applicable AHR policies.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding confidential manuscripts, seek to identify anonymized authors, delegate review responsibilities without editorial authorization, misuse unpublished findings, request inappropriate or coercive citations, or disclose confidential research and editorial materials. Relevant personal, professional, financial, institutional, collaborative, supervisory, or competitive conflicts of interest must be disclosed before accepting a review assignment.
Editors who also serve as reviewers must not review, manage, or decide their own manuscripts or submissions where a material conflict of interest exists. Conflicted submissions must be handled through appropriate independent editorial arrangements.
Confidential manuscripts, unpublished clinical or laboratory data, identifiable patient information, author details, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must not be shared with unauthorized individuals or uploaded into publicly accessible generative-AI tools or other systems where confidentiality, consent, research integrity, and appropriate data protection cannot be assured.
Reviewer reports should be objective, constructive, specific, sufficiently evidenced, and respectful. Assessments should distinguish substantive scientific, clinical, methodological, statistical, analytical, ethical, or interpretive concerns from minor presentation, language, or formatting issues. Reviewers should critically assess the research problem, scientific contribution, methodology, evidence, analysis, findings, conclusions, and implications according to the declared manuscript type and relevant healthcare discipline.
Reviews of revised manuscripts should focus on whether previously identified material concerns have been adequately addressed and whether any unresolved scientific, methodological, ethical, or research-integrity issue remains. New substantial requirements should be requested only when scientifically necessary and appropriately justified.
Researchers with appropriate scientific or methodological expertise may register in the AHR Online Journal System and express interest in reviewing. Registration does not automatically establish membership in the public reviewer directory or guarantee a review invitation. Responsible editors assess reviewer suitability, expertise, independence, availability, and the journal's editorial needs.
The public directory reflects reviewer entries maintained by the journal and does not certify the current availability of every listed individual. Affiliations, professional roles, and scholarly profile information should be administratively verified and updated where appropriate. Legitimate updates to the public directory do not retrospectively change completed review records, editorial decisions, publication dates, DOI records, or other established scholarly records.
Questions concerning reviewer invitations, review deadlines, OJS access, conflict-of-interest disclosures, or administrative support may be directed to the Managing Editor, Haeril Amir, through the journal's support contact at advancesresearch@gmail.com. Matters requiring principal academic editorial attention may be directed to the Chief Executive Editor, Nurfardiansyah Burhanuddin, through the editorial office at editor@advancesinresearch.id.