Jivaro Journal

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers help Jivaro Journal evaluate whether manuscripts are rigorous, clear, ethical, useful, and suitable for publication. This page explains reviewer responsibilities, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, evaluation standards, report structure, recommendations, and compensation.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final editorial decisions are made by the handling editor, editorial leadership, or another designated editorial decision-maker.

Confidentiality Conflicts Double-Anonymous Review Research Quality Constructive Reports Compensation

Scope

Who these guidelines apply to

These standards apply to anyone asked to evaluate a manuscript for Jivaro Journal, whether the review is external, editorial, methodological, statistical, technical, ethical, clinical, or specialist in nature.

Covered reviewers

These guidelines apply to external peer reviewers, editorial reviewers, invited specialists, statistical reviewers, methodological reviewers, technical reviewers, ethics reviewers, and consultants who evaluate manuscripts or manuscript-related materials for Jivaro Journal.

Different review levels

Not every article type receives the same kind of review. Some manuscripts may undergo editorial screening only. Others may be sent for double-anonymous external peer review or specialist review when the editor determines it is appropriate.

Eligibility and conflicts

Before accepting a review

Reviewers should accept only when they can evaluate the manuscript responsibly, impartially, and within the requested timeframe.

Rule
Reviewer responsibility
Why it matters
Expertise
Reviewers should have relevant subject-matter, methodological, statistical, technical, clinical, applied, or field-specific expertise.
A review should evaluate the work from a position of relevant competence.
Decline when outside scope
Reviewers should decline or notify the editor if the manuscript is outside their expertise.
Weak or misplaced expertise can lead to unfair or unhelpful reports.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers should disclose personal, financial, institutional, competitive, collaborative, supervisory, authorship, funding, or ideological conflicts before accepting.
Conflicts can affect impartiality or create the appearance of unfair review.
Double-anonymous issues
Reviewers should disclose if they recognize or suspect the author’s identity in a double-anonymous process.
The editor can then decide whether the reviewer can remain impartial.
No review abuse
Reviewers must not use the process to delay competitors, suppress work, promote their own work unfairly, or request unnecessary citations.
Peer review should improve evaluation, not manipulate the literature or the publication process.
Responsible completion
Reviewers should decline if they cannot complete the review responsibly, constructively, and within the agreed timeframe.
Late or incomplete reviews can delay authors and editorial decisions.

Confidentiality and AI limits

Manuscripts are confidential

Reviewer invitations, manuscripts, figures, tables, data, methods, ideas, author responses, editorial correspondence, and review reports are confidential unless Jivaro Journal explicitly states otherwise.

Reviewers must not

  • Share, copy, upload, quote, circulate, or discuss manuscript material outside the review process.
  • Use unpublished ideas, methods, data, text, or findings for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage.
  • Try to identify authors in a double-anonymous process.
  • Disclose reviewer identity unless allowed or required by Jivaro Journal.

AI and external tools

  • Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, data, figures, review materials, or confidential editorial information into AI tools, chatbots, third-party platforms, or external services unless Jivaro explicitly allows it.
  • Reviewers should report accidental disclosure, suspected identity issues, or confidentiality problems promptly.
  • AI-generated comments should not replace the reviewer’s own expert judgment.

Evaluation standards

What reviewers should evaluate

Reviewers should focus on the manuscript’s fit, contribution, methods, evidence, interpretation, ethics, reporting quality, and suitability for publication.

Aims, scope, and article type

Does the manuscript fit Jivaro Journal’s aims, scope, audience, and submitted article type?

Originality and contribution

Does the manuscript add a meaningful scholarly, analytical, applied, methodological, or interpretive contribution?

Question, thesis, or problem

Is the research question, argument, applied problem, case focus, or review scope clear?

Methods and evidence

Are the methodology, analytical approach, statistics, code, data, materials, or literature base appropriate?

Interpretation and limits

Do the conclusions follow from the evidence, and are limitations, uncertainty, and assumptions handled fairly?

Ethics and disclosures

Are ethics approval, consent, privacy, conflicts, funding, AI use, and data availability addressed where relevant?

Figures, tables, and references

Are figures, tables, citations, references, and supplementary materials accurate, clear, and necessary?

Overstatement and tone

Are any claims overstated, unsupported, promotional, speculative, misleading, or outside the manuscript’s evidence?

Reviewer report

Recommended report structure

A useful reviewer report is specific, constructive, evidence-based, and separated into issues that matter for editorial decision-making.

Summary
Briefly describe what the manuscript attempts to do and your overall assessment of its contribution.
Major issues
Identify issues that affect validity, interpretation, scope, evidence, methodology, ethics, data availability, structure, or publication suitability.
Minor issues
List smaller issues such as wording, formatting, references, clarity, figure labels, table presentation, or reporting details.
Ethics and data concerns
Flag concerns about consent, privacy, human or animal research, clinical material, conflicts of interest, AI use, or data availability.
Recommendation
Provide a recommendation, but remember that reviewer recommendations are advisory and final decisions belong to editorial leadership.
Confidential comments
Use confidential comments to the editor for sensitive concerns that should not appear in comments to the author, such as suspected misconduct or conflicts.

Recommendations

Decision categories reviewers may use

Reviewer recommendations help editors make decisions, but they do not determine the final outcome by themselves.

Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes, though minor editorial changes may still be needed.
Minor revision
The manuscript is generally sound but needs limited clarification, correction, formatting, reference, or presentation changes.
Major revision
The manuscript has potential but needs substantial revision before it can be reassessed.
Reject
The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of validity, evidence, scope, ethics, originality, reporting, or quality concerns.
Unsuitable / out of scope
The manuscript may not fit Jivaro Journal’s aims, article types, audience, or editorial priorities.
Unable to assess
Use when the reviewer cannot responsibly evaluate the manuscript or a major part of it, such as statistical methods, code, clinical claims, or field-specific claims.

Review conduct

Constructive, specific, and evidence-based

Reviewers should be direct without being hostile. A strong review explains what is wrong, why it matters, and how the author might address it.

Good reviewer comments

  • Identify specific sections, claims, methods, tables, figures, or references.
  • Separate major issues from minor issues.
  • Explain why a concern affects interpretation or publication suitability.
  • Recommend improvements without rewriting the manuscript for the author.
  • Use respectful language even when recommending rejection.

Reviewers should avoid

  • Hostile, insulting, discriminatory, or dismissive language.
  • Vague comments such as “weak” or “not good” without explanation.
  • Unnecessary citation demands, especially to the reviewer’s own work.
  • Requests that move the manuscript outside its intended scope.
  • Comments based on author identity, affiliation, nationality, gender, language background, or institutional status.

Workflow

Review workflow

Reviewers should communicate early if they need to decline, request more time, report a conflict, or flag a concern.

1

Invitation

Review the topic, article type, deadline, confidentiality expectations, and possible conflicts.

2

Accept or decline

Accept only if you can review responsibly. Decline promptly if you cannot.

3

Evaluate

Assess fit, contribution, evidence, methods, ethics, limitations, and reporting quality.

4

Report

Submit a clear review with major issues, minor issues, and a recommendation.

5

Decision

The editor considers the review, other reports, and journal standards before deciding.

Reviewer compensation

Compensation does not affect editorial decisions

Jivaro compensates formally invited reviewers for completed reviews according to the terms provided in the reviewer invitation. Compensation is for the reviewer’s time and work, not for a particular recommendation, speed, outcome, or editorial decision.

Reviewers must not accept compensation, gifts, favors, or private incentives from authors, institutions, sponsors, companies, or interested third parties in connection with a Jivaro Journal review. Any outside offer or attempted influence should be reported to the editor.

Related policies

Reviewer conduct connects directly to conflicts of interest, peer review, research ethics, data availability, and publication-integrity policies.

Conflicts of Interest Peer Review Process Research Ethics Data Availability

Jivaro Journal

Research directory

Use these pages to check scope, article fit, formatting, peer review, publication policies, ethics, open access, conflicts, corrections, and submission requirements.