Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Health Nexus values the critical role of peer reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for:

• Providing fair, unbiased, and evidence-based assessments
• Evaluating the scientific rigor, originality, and relevance of manuscripts
• Offering constructive feedback to improve the manuscript
• Supporting editorial decision-making

2. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• Share or disclose manuscript content
• Use unpublished data for personal research
• Discuss the manuscript with others without editorial permission

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must:

• Declare any conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, or personal)
• Decline review if a conflict may affect objectivity

4. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should identify and report:

• Possible plagiarism or duplicate publication
• Ethical concerns (e.g., lack of ethical approval, consent issues)
• Data fabrication, falsification, or image manipulation
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

5.1 Scientific Quality

• Sound study design and methodology
• Appropriate statistical analysis
• Valid interpretation of results

5.2 Originality and Novelty

• Contribution to the field
• Innovation in integrative medicine

5.3 Interdisciplinary Integration

• Meaningful integration of Western medicine and TCM
• Mechanistic and clinical relevance

5.4 Clarity and Structure

• Logical organization
• Clear and concise writing

5.5 Ethical Compliance

• Ethical approval and consent
• Transparency in reporting

6. Review Report Structure

Reviewers are encouraged to provide:

• Summary of the manuscript
• Major comments (critical issues affecting validity or interpretation)
• Minor comments (clarifications, language, formatting)
• Recommendation:
  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

7. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

• Accept or decline invitations promptly
• Submit reviews within the requested timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)

If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Reviewers must:

• Not upload manuscripts to AI tools that may compromise confidentiality
• Avoid using AI in ways that expose unpublished data
• Ensure that any limited AI assistance does not violate confidentiality

9. Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be:

• Professional and respectful
• Specific and actionable
• Focused on improving the manuscript

Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

10. Anonymity and Peer Review Model

11. Editorial Decision

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor, based on reviewer recommendations and editorial judgment.

12. Recognition of Reviewers

The journal may:

• Acknowledge reviewers annually
• Provide certificates of review upon request