Instructions for Reviewers

Virosa Journal of AI in Science and Healthcare (VJASH) deeply values the contribution of peer reviewers, who ensure that every manuscript meets the highest standards of scientific accuracy, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance.

This document provides comprehensive instructions for reviewers to carry out their role with professionalism, fairness, and efficiency.

1. The Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process serves to:

  • Maintain quality: Ensure that only high-quality, original, and ethical research is published.

  • Improve manuscripts: Provide constructive suggestions to authors for improving their work.

  • Assist editorial decision-making: Help the editorial board decide whether to accept, revise, or reject a submission.

  • Protect integrity: Safeguard against plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research, or duplicate submissions.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

As a reviewer, you are expected to:

Expertise

  • Accept review assignments only if the manuscript falls within your field of expertise.

  • Decline if the topic is outside your expertise, or suggest alternative reviewers.

Confidentiality

  • Treat the manuscript and its content as strictly confidential.

  • Do not share, store, or distribute any part of the manuscript.

  • Do not use ideas, data, or findings from the manuscript for personal advantage.

Objectivity

  • Evaluate manuscripts fairly, impartially, and without bias.

  • Provide constructive and evidence-based feedback.

  • Avoid personal, offensive, or vague criticism.

Conflict of Interest (COI)

  • Declare any potential conflict of interest, including:

    • Personal/Professional relationships with authors.

    • Financial or institutional ties to the work.

    • Competitive interests.

  • If in doubt, notify the editor before proceeding.

Timeliness

  • Reviews should be completed within 14–21 days.

  • If you require an extension, inform the editorial office immediately.

3. The Review Process: Step by Step

  1. Invitation – You will receive an email invitation to review.

  2. Acceptance – Confirm only if you have expertise and availability.

  3. Access to Manuscript – Once accepted, you will receive full access to the manuscript and reviewer form.

  4. Evaluation – Carefully read the manuscript at least twice:

    • First for overall impression.

    • Second for detailed assessment.

  5. Prepare Review Report – Provide comments for both authors and editor.

  6. Submit Review – Through the journal’s submission system within the agreed timeline.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts under the following dimensions:

A. Scientific Merit

  • Is the research original and novel?

  • Does it contribute new knowledge, methods, or applications in AI, science, or healthcare?

  • Are the research objectives clearly defined?

  • Is the methodology appropriate and robust?

  • Are results valid, reproducible, and well-supported?

B. Ethical Compliance

  • Has the study obtained appropriate ethics approval (if involving humans/animals)?

  • Is there informed consent where necessary?

  • Are conflicts of interest and funding sources disclosed?

  • Are there any signs of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data fabrication?

C. Quality of Presentation

  • Is the manuscript well-structured (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References)?

  • Is the language clear and professional?

  • Are figures, tables, and references presented appropriately?

  • Does the manuscript follow the journal’s formatting guidelines?

D. Relevance & Impact

  • Is the work relevant to the journal’s scope (AI in science and healthcare)?

  • Does it address an important problem or practical application?

  • Is the potential impact significant for researchers, practitioners, or policymakers?

5. Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review, select one of the following:

  • ✅ Accept – Suitable for publication with no or minimal changes.

  • Minor Revisions – Needs small corrections (grammar, formatting, minor clarifications).

  • Major Revisions – Requires substantial changes (methodology, data analysis, results).

  • ❌ Reject – Unsuitable for publication (flawed, unethical, or irrelevant).

6. Writing Your Review Report

Your report should be clear, constructive, and structured.

Comments for Authors (Visible to Authors)

  • Provide specific suggestions (not just criticism).

  • Use polite and professional language.

  • Highlight both strengths and weaknesses.

Example:

  • Instead of: “The methods are weak.”

  • Write: “The methods section lacks detail on dataset preprocessing. Please clarify the steps and tools used to improve reproducibility.”

Comments for Editors (Confidential)

  • Raise any serious concerns (plagiarism, ethics, duplicate submission).

  • Provide your overall recommendation.

7. Reviewer Report Template (Recommended)

Section A: General Evaluation

  • Originality: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Scientific Quality: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Ethical Standards: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Clarity of Writing: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Relevance to Journal: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Section B: Major Comments

  1. [Detailed comment]

  2. [Detailed comment]

Section C: Minor Comments

  1. [Minor issue]

  2. [Minor issue]

Section D: Recommendation

  • Accept / Minor Revisions / Major Revisions / Reject

8. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

  • Do not delay reviews intentionally.

  • Do not suggest citation of your own work unless clearly relevant.

  • Do not contact authors directly.

  • Maintain professionalism at all times.

9. Recognition for Reviewers

To acknowledge your valuable contribution:

  • Reviewers receive an official certificate of appreciation.

  • Review activity can be linked to Publons, ORCID, and other recognition platforms.

  • Outstanding reviewers may be featured on the journal’s website annually.

10. Contact Information

For queries, deadline extensions, or technical difficulties, please contact:
Email: [email protected] 

For fast responses Fill: contact form
Website: www.virosapub.com