Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a pivotal role in ensuring the scholarly quality, integrity, and credibility of publications in the Annals of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ACGH). As an invited expert, you are entrusted with evaluating manuscripts objectively, constructively, and confidentially, in alignment with the journal’s rigorous policies and industry-leading standards.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Model

ACGH employs a double-blind peer review system—author and reviewer identities remain concealed throughout the process to eliminate bias. This method enhances fairness, objectivity, and the overall integrity of scholarly evaluation.

Reviews are conducted entirely online via our submission platform; once requested, you’ll be able to access the manuscript, submit your evaluation, and track your review status securely.

2. Invitation, Acceptance, & Confidentiality

Upon invitation, please assess whether the manuscript aligns with your field and whether you can provide a thoughtful review within the requested timeline. If you must decline, please do so promptly and, when possible, suggest an alternate reviewer with relevant expertise.

Confidentiality Requirements:
  • Maintain absolute confidentiality regarding manuscript content and review discussions.
  • Do not share the manuscript with others unless granted explicit permission in writing from the editorial office.
  • Ensure all manuscript files are handled securely and removed once review is completed.

3. Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts—personal, institutional, financial, or competitive—that might compromise objectivity. If a conflict exists, please recuse yourself immediately or seek guidance from the editorial team.

4. Ethical Conduct & Misconduct Alerts

Your role carries ethical responsibility. If you identify issues such as plagiarism, manipulated data, inappropriate citation practices, or other misconduct, alert the editors confidentially through the review submission system or email.

5. Review Structure & Core Evaluation Criteria

ACGH values thorough, constructive, and fair reviews. Please organize your review into these components:

  • Summary: Briefly restate the manuscript’s objective, methods, and findings to show alignment with what you evaluated.
  • Originality: Does the study present new insights and avoid duplication of existing literature?
  • Methodology & Analysis: Are the research design, statistical methods, and analysis sound and reproducible?
  • Clinical Relevance: Are the findings meaningful to advancements in gastroenterology, hepatology, or clinical practice?
  • Clarity & Presentation: Is the manuscript well-structured and accessible? Are figures and tables effective?
  • References & Ethics: Are sources relevant, up-to-date, and properly cited? Are ethical considerations documented?
  • Additional Feedback: Provide constructive suggestions for improvement or highlight strong elements.

These checkpoints guide systematic and equitable evaluations and assist in upholding ACGH’s scholarly standards.

6. Review Format & Language

Reviews should be professional, respectful, and free from personal or inflammatory comments. Aim for clarity in both tone and structure, offering specific insights rather than general remarks.

Consider organizing feedback into bullet or numbered lists for easy comprehension. When recommending additions or changes, refer to precise sections or lines.

7. Timeliness & Follow-Up Reviews

Timely reviews preserve fairness for authors and maintain journal efficiency. If additional review is requested after revision, please respond promptly—delayed responses can undermine the editorial process.

8. Recognition & Reviewer Development

ACGH values your contribution and credits reviewers via certificates or acknowledgments (e.g., Publons or similar, upon reviewer consent). Consult your invitations or editorial team for recognition details.

9. Best Practices for Consistently Exemplary Reviews

To strengthen your review contributions over time:

  • Before reviewing, ensure the manuscript aligns with your expertise and you have adequate time for a deep evaluation.
  • Use structured headings or checklists to organize feedback clearly.
  • Support criticisms with reason or evidence; point authors toward improvement rather than dismissal.
  • Focus on substantiated comments rather than conjecture.
  • Recommend citations judiciously, avoiding unnecessary promotion of specific works, including your own.
  • Disclose if AI tools are used in any part of the review and ensure compliance with journal policies.

10. Appeals & Post-Review Communication

If an author appeals or disputes a decision that involves your review, the editor may contact you to clarify your comments—but will preserve your anonymity unless otherwise agreed.

Editors may also ask you for clarification or elaboration on your feedback, particularly if contradictions or unclear points arise.

Last updated: 2025-09-02