Reviewer's Responsibilities

Peer reviewers are critical agents in ensuring the quality, integrity, and relevance of scholarly research within the Annals of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ACGH). This document outlines reviewer expectations—from ethical conduct and confidentiality to constructive evaluation and timely submission—underpinned by best practices and the journal’s own double-blind review framework.

1. Upholding Confidentiality

All manuscripts and associated materials are strictly confidential. You must never share, distribute, or discuss any content with individuals outside the editorial process unless explicitly permitted. This includes refraining from using AI tools or sharing files via unsecured platforms. If you involve a colleague for assistance, ensure their confidentiality is maintained and recognize their input in your report. 

2. Declaring Conflicts of Interest

You must promptly reveal any potential conflict that may compromise your neutrality—this includes financial ties, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, or competitive journals. If in doubt, recuse yourself from the assignment. Failure to disclose such conflicts undermines the objectivity of peer review. 

3. Declining Invitations When Appropriate

Before accepting, consider whether your expertise suits the manuscript’s subject, whether you can deliver within the timeline, and whether any conflicts exist. If you must decline, do so promptly and suggest other qualified reviewers if possible.

4. Conducting a Thorough and Constructive Review

Your evaluation should assess originality, methodology, clinical relevance, clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field. Use a structured format—summary, strengths, weaknesses, and actionable recommendations—to offer balanced insight. Clear reasoning supports editorial decisions and enhances author development.

5. Ethical Vigilance

Remain alert to instances of plagiarism, data fabrication, redundancy, or ethical concerns. Report suspicions discreetly through securely provided channels. Editors will manage further investigation in adherence with COPE protocols.

6. Timely Delivery of Reviews

Respecting deadlines is vital for author equity and workflow efficiency. Late submission impacts journal timelines and author experience—honoring time frames is a key ethical duty.

7. Transparent Recommendations

Provide clear suggestions, but recognize the final publication decision rests with the editors. Your advisory insights—accepted or not—inform a multi-faceted editorial judgment. 

8. Reflective and Ongoing Reviewer Development

Consider peer reviewing as a privilege toward scholarly community building. Stay updated with COPE’s Reviewer guidelines, engage in reviewer training programs, and hone evaluation skills. 

9. Reviewer Recognition and Feedback

While maintaining anonymity, ACGH may acknowledge reviewer contributions through platforms like Publons or offer certificates of appreciation. High-quality reviewers enhance community trust and scientific progress.

10. Responding Thoughtfully to Clarification Requests

If editors or authors seek clarification or reassessment regarding your review comments, respond constructively while preserving review confidentiality and journal policy.

11. Maintaining Ethical Use of Confidential Content

Refrain from using unpublished manuscript content for personal research or professional advancement; this protects author trust and upholds moral standards.

Last updated: 2025-09-02