The guidelines provided for reviewers by AJP are aimed at improving and expediting the publication process. Here's a breakdown of the key points and recommendations for reviewers:
- Prompt Response: Reviewers are encouraged to respond promptly to review invitations, especially if they are unable to conduct the review. Timely responses help editors invite alternative reviewers swiftly, reducing submission-to-decision (StD) time. Failure to respond promptly can lead to delays in the decision-making process, impacting the overall publication timeline.
- Suggesting Alternative Reviewers: If a reviewer is unable to conduct the review, they are requested to suggest alternative reviewers. This proactive approach assists editors in identifying suitable replacements quickly. Reviewers are often selected based on their expertise, making them well-placed to recommend other qualified individuals. This collaborative effort helps maintain the efficiency of the peer review process and upholds the quality of scholarly publications.
- Double-Blind Peer Review: AJP follows a double-blind peer review policy, where reviewers are unaware of the author's identity, ensuring an unbiased evaluation of the manuscript. While achieving complete anonymity can be challenging in certain academic circles, reviewers are reminded of the importance of maintaining confidentiality. The journal acknowledges the ongoing debate surrounding Open Peer Review but emphasizes the significance of maintaining impartiality in the review process.
- Reviewer Anonymity: Reviewers are given the option to disclose their identity to authors if they believe it can enhance the quality of the paper through personal discussions. However, reviewers are advised to consider power differentials that may exist between themselves and the authors before choosing to reveal their identity. This consideration ensures a fair and constructive review process that benefits both reviewers and authors.
By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the peer review process, ultimately contributing to the quality and credibility of scholarly publications.
