Reviewer Guidelines

1. Purpose of Review

The peer-review process is central to maintaining the quality, integrity and academic credibility of the Antyoday Research Journal (ARJ). Reviewers play a vital role in assessing the originality, rigor, clarity, and contribution of submitted manuscripts to their respective disciplines. The objective is to provide constructive, fair and unbiased feedback to both the author(s) and the editorial board.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

1. Evaluate manuscripts objectively and confidentially.
2. Provide a clear, evidence-based, and constructive assessment.
3. Submit reviews within the specified deadline or inform the editor promptly if a delay is anticipated.
4. Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and related correspondence.
5. Disclose any potential conflict of interest (financial, institutional, personal, or collaborative).
6. Avoid using unpublished material or ideas from the reviewed manuscript for personal advantage.

3. Ethical Standards

• Reviews must be conducted in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
• Reviewers must avoid bias based on gender, religion, region, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs.
• Any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research conduct or duplicate publication must be immediately reported to the Editor.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should focus on the following aspects while assessing a manuscript:

Criteria	Key Questions
Originality	Is the work novel and does it add new knowledge or insight to the field?
Relevance	Is the topic significant and aligned with the scope of the journal?
Research Design and Methodology	Are the methods appropriate, valid and adequately described?
Data and Analysis	Are data sufficient, accurate and properly interpreted?
Clarity and Organization	Is the paper clearly written and logically structured?
Referencing	Are citations accurate, recent and relevant?
Ethical Compliance	Does the study adhere to ethical research standards?

5. Structure of Review Report

A high-quality review report should include:

1. Summary: Briefly describe the main objectives and findings of the paper.
2. Major Comments: Identify key areas needing improvement or clarification (methodology, argumentation, originality, etc.).
3. Minor Comments: Highlight grammatical, structural or formatting issues.
4. Recommendation: Indicate one of the following outcomes:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revision required
• Reject (with justification)

6. Tone and Style

• Maintain a professional, respectful, and encouraging tone.
• Provide specific examples for suggested improvements.
• Avoid harsh, dismissive, or ambiguous remarks.
• Focus on the content, not on the author’s personality or background.

7. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

• Manuscripts are confidential documents. Do not share or discuss them with others without editorial consent.
• Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest (academic, financial, personal, or institutional) before accepting the review.

8. Timeliness

• Reviews are expected to be submitted within 1 week of invitation.
• If additional time is required, the reviewer should promptly inform the editorial office.

9. Ethical Misconduct Reporting

If a reviewer suspects:

• Plagiarism
• Duplicate publication
• Fabricated data
• Unethical research practices

They must immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief with evidence or observations.

10. Recognition and Acknowledgment

• ARJ values the voluntary contribution of reviewers.
• Reviewers may receive an official certificate of appreciation for their academic service with review of minimum 5 research papers of journal.
• Exceptional reviewers may be featured on the Antyoday Research Journal website as “Outstanding Reviewers”.

11. Communication with the Editorial Team

All communications regarding the review process should be made directly with the Editorial Board or Managing Editor via portal.
Reviewers must not contact the authors directly.

12. Reviewer Integrity Statement

By accepting the invitation to review, the reviewer agrees to:

• Maintain the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and confidentiality.
• Provide a fair, balanced and evidence-based review.
• Support the editorial decision-making process in an ethical and constructive manner.

Issued by:
Editor-in-Chief
Antyoday Research Journal (ARJ)
Antyoday Mahavidyalaya, Devgram – 441301
Email: [insert email ID]
Website: [insert website URL]