ISSN :xxxx-xxxx
Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, constructive, and timely assessments of manuscripts within their areas of expertise. Their feedback should help authors improve the quality, clarity, and academic contribution of their research.
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or disclose unpublished manuscript content to unauthorized individuals without appropriate permission.
Reviews should be based on the scientific or scholarly merit of the manuscript, including its originality, methodology, relevance, presentation, and contribution to the field. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should provide clear and professional comments supported by reasonable explanations.
Reviewers may assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:
Originality: Whether the work offers new insights, findings, or perspectives.
Relevance: Whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope.
Methodology: Whether the research methods are appropriate and adequately explained.
Results and Discussion: Whether findings are presented clearly and interpreted logically.
References: Whether relevant literature is appropriately cited.
Presentation: Whether the manuscript is well organized, readable, and academically sound.
Ethical Compliance: Whether the research addresses relevant ethical requirements.
Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or academic relationships that could affect their impartiality. If a significant conflict of interest exists, reviewers should inform the editorial team and decline the review when appropriate.
Reviewers should complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe. If they cannot meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial team promptly so that suitable arrangements can be made.
Reviewers should alert the editor if they identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation practices, data manipulation, or other potential ethical concerns. Such concerns should be reported confidentially and supported by relevant evidence where possible.
Reviewers should provide specific, respectful, and actionable comments. Feedback should identify the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses and suggest improvements where necessary. Confidential comments intended only for the editor should be clearly distinguished from comments intended for the authors.
After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes, according to the journal's review procedure:
Accept.
Minor revision.
Major revision.
Reject.
These recommendations assist the editorial team but do not constitute a final publication decision. The final decision rests with the journal's authorized editor.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, ideas, or findings obtained through the review process for personal research or professional advantage without the appropriate authorization.
Any acknowledgment, certificate, or other recognition for reviewers will be provided according to the journal's official policies and practices.
Reviewers are expected to uphold academic integrity, respect intellectual property rights, and conduct all evaluations professionally. Any concerns about the integrity of the review process should be communicated to the editorial team.
For questions about manuscript evaluation or reviewer responsibilities, please consult the official website of Aaradhya International Journal:
https://arjournal.praveenpatel.com/
Note: This is a proposed reviewer policy template. Before publishing, ensure that it reflects the journal's actual peer review model, review deadlines, confidentiality requirements, and reviewer recognition practices.