For Reviewers

Peer review process

American Impact Review uses single-blind peer review. Reviewer identities are kept confidential; author identities are visible to reviewers.

1. Invitation: Editors select reviewers based on expertise match. You receive an email with the manuscript title and abstract.
2. Accept or decline within 48 hours. If you cannot review, suggest an alternative reviewer if possible.
3. Review: Read the manuscript, assess it against the evaluation criteria below, and submit your report through the review form.
4. Decision: The editor considers all reviewer reports and makes the final editorial decision. Reviewers may be asked to re-review revised manuscripts.

When to decline a review

• The manuscript is outside your area of expertise
• You have a conflict of interest (see below)
• You cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe
• You have recently reviewed the same manuscript for another journal

If you decline, please suggest alternative reviewers when possible. Declining does not affect your standing as a reviewer.

Evaluation criteria

Assess the manuscript on the following dimensions:

Scientific rigor

• Is the research question clearly stated?
• Is the study design appropriate for the question?
• Are methods described in sufficient detail for replication?
• Is the statistical analysis appropriate and correctly applied?
• Are sample sizes adequate?

Originality and significance

• Does the work make a new contribution to the field?
• Is the work placed in context of existing literature?
• Are the findings relevant and potentially impactful?

Results and interpretation

• Are the conclusions supported by the data?
• Are limitations discussed honestly?
• Are figures and tables clear and necessary?

Presentation

• Is the writing clear and well-organized?
• Is the abstract accurate and complete?
• Are references appropriate and up to date?

Ethics compliance

• Are ethics approvals reported (IRB, animal ethics)?
• Is informed consent documented?
• Are conflicts of interest disclosed?
• Is a data availability statement included?

Scoring scale

Rate the manuscript on each criterion using this scale:

Recommendation categories

• Accept: Manuscript is ready for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections.
• Minor revisions: Small clarifications, language improvements, or additional references needed. No new experiments or analyses required.
• Major revisions: Significant changes needed to methods, analysis, or interpretation. May require additional data or experiments. Will be re-reviewed.
• Reject: Fundamental flaws in design or execution, insufficient originality, or outside journal scope.

How to structure your review

A good review report includes:

1. Summary (2-3 sentences): what the paper does and its main findings
2. Major concerns: issues that must be addressed before publication (methods, analysis, interpretation)
3. Minor concerns: smaller suggestions (clarifications, typos, missing references)
4. Specific comments: line-by-line or section-by-section feedback
5. Confidential comments to editor: issues not appropriate for the authors (suspected misconduct, conflicts)

Be constructive and specific. Explain why something is a problem and suggest how it can be fixed. Avoid vague statements like "the methods are weak" without explanation.

Confidentiality

• Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share them with anyone without editor permission.
• Do not use information from the manuscript for personal advantage before publication.
• Do not contact authors directly about the manuscript.
• Destroy or delete all manuscript files after completing your review.

Conflicts of interest

Decline the review or disclose the conflict to the editor if any of the following apply:

• You are a co-author, collaborator, or former advisor/student of any author
• You work at the same institution as any author
• You have a financial interest in the outcome
• You have a personal relationship with any author
• You are a direct competitor working on the same research question

Use of AI tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of the submission to AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.). This is a violation of manuscript confidentiality and may constitute a breach of the reviewer agreement.

• Not allowed: Uploading the manuscript, copying text from the manuscript, or pasting figures into any AI system
• Allowed: Using AI to check grammar or polish your own review text (not the manuscript)
• Disclosure: Any use of AI in preparing the review must be disclosed to the editor

Reporting guidelines

Check whether the manuscript follows the appropriate reporting standard for its study type. Indicate in your review if a required checklist is missing or incomplete.

• Randomized trials: CONSORT
• Observational studies: STROBE
• Systematic reviews: PRISMA
• Diagnostic accuracy: STARD
• Case reports: CARE
• Qualitative research: COREQ
• Animal studies: ARRIVE

See the EQUATOR Network for a complete list of reporting guidelines.

Data availability

As part of your review, check whether the manuscript includes a Data Availability Statement and whether the underlying data are accessible or appropriately justified as restricted. Specifically:

• Is a Data Availability Statement present?
• Are datasets deposited in a public repository (Zenodo, figshare, Dryad, GitHub)?
• If data are restricted, is the reason clearly stated?
• Are analysis scripts or code shared when relevant?
• Do the data presented match the claims in the manuscript?

Reviewer recognition

• Certificate: Reviewers receive a certificate of peer review upon completion
• Annual acknowledgment: Reviewer names are listed in the annual Reviewer Acknowledgment published in the journal
• APC discount: Active reviewers (3+ reviews per year) receive a 50% discount on APC for their own submissions
• ORCID: Reviews can be added to your ORCID record

Reviewer code of conduct

We follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide honest, objective, and constructive feedback
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe
• Declare all conflicts of interest
• Maintain confidentiality
• Not discriminate based on author nationality, gender, institution, or religion
• Report suspected misconduct to the editor

Questions?

For questions about the review process, technical issues, or confidential concerns, contact the Editor-in-Chief at egor@americanimpactreview.com or use the contact form.