1. The journal peer-reviewing policy

The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the manuscript under review is in good quality and unbiased. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations. The JAD Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process.

The JAD works on a double-blind review system with at least two reviewers used to evaluate manuscripts for publication. The identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Editors have the right to reject the manuscripts without peer-review when the manuscript: (i) is on a topic outside the scope of the journal; (ii) presents conflicting results; and (iii) is poorly written. Editors are responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The whole review process usually takes about 3 to 4 months, sometimes more.

Basic process of peer review as following chart:


2. Guidelines for Reviewers

  • Respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.
  • Only agree to review a manuscript for which they have the subject expertise.
  • Return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the Editor promptly if they require an extension.
  • Declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious.
  • Decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting.
  • Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s advantages. They should respect the confidentiality of the manuscript which is sent to them in confidence. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the Editor.
  • Conduct fairly and objectively. They should read the article critically and then either suggest that it is accepted, rejected, or most frequently revised and improved before it is published. If they cannot judge a paper impartially, they should not accept it for review or they should notify the Editor as soon as they appreciate the situation.
  • Not contact the authors directly without the permission of the Editor.
  • Peer review is not without flaws. Those who evaluate papers are not infallible and often work under time constraints that militate against perfection.

3. Guidelines for giving comments to authors

Comments from peer reviewers will be submitted to the Editor. However, peer reviewers should bear in mind that the Editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgment, and an honest & fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Your comments should constructive and designed to enhance the manuscript.

For comments, peer reviewers should:

  • Make your comments clear and detail as possible, including strengths, weaknesses and relevance of the manuscript. Keep in mind that your feedback will help the authors to improve their manuscript. So general and specific comments should be required.
  • Be objective and constructive in your reviews.
  • Be specific in your criticisms. For instance, if peer reviewers recognize this research or part of research has been done before and published in other journals, you should provide evidence with appropriate references to help Editors in their evaluation and decision.
  • Be not allowed to prepare your comment in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on other persons.
  • Not suggest that authors include citations of the reviewer’s research merely to increase the reviewer’s citation count. Pleases keep in mind that suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.

If you have any questions concerning the Editorial Manager system, please contact the Journal Editorial Assistant, available through e-mail: jad@hcmuaf.edu.vn.