Peer reviewers contribute to the scholarly quality, integrity, rigor, relevance, and credibility of Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR). Reviewers provide independent expert assessment to assist academic editors in evaluating manuscripts and to help authors improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of their work.
Reviews should be objective, constructive, confidential, independent, respectful, proportionate, and evidence-based. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial evaluation but remain advisory; final scientific-editorial responsibility rests with the responsible academic editor and, where applicable, the Editor-in-Chief.
AHRMR applies double-anonymous peer review. Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate disciplinary and/or methodological expertise. The normal pathway is Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision.
AHRMR accepts two manuscript types only: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper. Research Papers present original empirical or otherwise systematically designed research, while Literature Review Papers provide rigorous scholarly synthesis using an explicitly identified and sufficiently transparent review approach. Research designs, analytical techniques, datasets, bibliometric methods, or other methodological approaches do not constitute separate manuscript types.
The reviewer's primary responsibility is to assess originality, scholarly relevance, theoretical or conceptual quality, research or review methodology, analysis or synthesis, interpretation, research integrity, and contribution. Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should ensure that the manuscript falls sufficiently within their disciplinary and/or methodological expertise, that they can provide an independent assessment, that no material conflict of interest exists, and that the review can be completed within the requested period.
Reviewers are not expected to function as copyeditors. Language, formatting, or presentation problems may be identified where they materially affect understanding, but peer review should focus primarily on scholarly validity, integrity, rigor, relevance, and contribution.
Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, forward, or use unpublished manuscript information for personal, professional, commercial, competitive, publication, or research advantage. Reviewers must not contact authors directly, attempt to identify anonymized authors, disclose their own identity to circumvent the double-anonymous process, or delegate a review without authorization from the responsible editor.
Relevant financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal conflicts of interest must be disclosed. When uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, reviewers should disclose the circumstances to the responsible editor before proceeding.
Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, author information, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to external Generative AI systems or automated services where confidentiality or appropriate data protection cannot be assured. AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment.
Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript falls within one or more fields explicitly included in the current AHRMR Aims & Scope and whether it provides a defensible scholarly contribution. All fields listed in the AHRMR Aims & Scope form part of the journal's main scholarly scope; a manuscript does not require an additional HRM, employee, workforce, or workplace variable when its substantive subject already falls within a stated scope area.
Review should consider the clarity of the research or review problem, originality and contribution, quality of the literature and conceptual foundation, appropriateness and transparency of methodology, research integrity, quality of analysis or synthesis, interpretation of evidence, strength of the discussion, proportionality of conclusions and implications, and overall coherence of scholarly presentation.
For a Research Paper, reviewers should consider whether the Introduction establishes a clear problem, gap, purpose, novelty, and contribution; whether the Literature Review provides an appropriate theoretical and empirical foundation; whether the Research Methodology presents a transparent and defensible design, context, sampling or cases, data, measures, procedures, analysis, and ethics where applicable; whether the Results are reported accurately and consistently; whether the Discussion interprets the evidence appropriately in relation to theory, prior scholarship, context, and contribution; and whether the Conclusion remains within the limits of the evidence and research design.
For a Literature Review Paper, reviewers should consider whether the review approach is clearly identified and appropriate, whether the Review Methodology provides sufficient transparency regarding literature identification, selection, organization, analysis, and synthesis, and whether the literature base is adequate for the stated purpose. The review should move beyond descriptive listing to identify meaningful themes, relationships, contradictions, developments, gaps, conceptual insights, or other substantive scholarly contributions.
Where bibliometric methods are used, bibliometric mapping, citation-network analysis, co-word analysis, or visualization alone is not sufficient. The manuscript should also provide meaningful theoretical, conceptual, substantive, or literature-based interpretation and synthesis, and its conclusions should remain supported by the reviewed evidence.
A useful review should distinguish major scholarly concerns from minor corrections, explain why identified issues matter, and provide actionable recommendations where revision is feasible. A clear report may be organized as Overall Assessment → Major Comments → Minor Comments → Recommendation.
Reviewer recommendations may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. These recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial outcome through simple voting. The responsible academic editor considers the manuscript, review reports, author responses, revised version, research-integrity considerations, and applicable journal policies when reaching the final scientific-editorial decision. Where reviewer reports materially conflict, the editor may assess the basis of disagreement, request clarification, or obtain an additional independent review.
Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or other serious integrity concerns should be reported confidentially to the responsible academic editor. Reviewers should not independently investigate authors or contact their institutions.
Citation recommendations must have clear scholarly justification. Reviewers must not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's publications, AHRMR publications, a preferred journal, colleague, research group, or other works primarily to increase citation counts.
When evaluating a revised manuscript, reviewers should focus on whether previously identified substantive concerns have been adequately addressed. Significant new requirements should not ordinarily be introduced unless the revision creates a new material issue, new evidence reveals a previously hidden concern, or a significant scientific or integrity issue was reasonably missed during the earlier review.
Reviewers should respond to invitations and submit reports within the timeframe indicated by the editorial system. If additional time is required, expertise is insufficient, a conflict emerges, or the review cannot be completed, the Editorial Office should be informed promptly so that manuscript processing is not unnecessarily delayed.
Researchers with relevant disciplinary or methodological expertise may register in the AHRMR Online Journal System and indicate willingness to review. Registration does not automatically confer reviewer status or guarantee a review invitation.
The current AHRMR reviewer framework applies prospectively from 1 September 2026. Changes in Aims & Scope, reviewer guidance, manuscript types, review forms, or editorial procedures do not retrospectively invalidate legitimate historical peer-review records or editorial decisions.
Questions concerning reviewer invitations, OJS access, review deadlines, conflicts of interest, or administrative aspects of peer review may be directed to the Managing Editor at advancesresearch@gmail.com. Scientific-editorial correspondence may be directed to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@advancesinresearch.id.