Instructions for Reviewers

Peer reviewers are a crucial part of the scientific publishing. We are grateful for the time and effort they donate to control and improve the quality of published research.

If you would be willing to contribute as reviewer for the LA&HA Journal in the future, please contact the editorial office.

You will be contacted by our journal with a review request. Please respond to this request as soon as you can, especially if you are unable to review. In this manner we can begin searching for another reviewer immediately and thus reduce the waiting time for the authors. If you are unable to review but are able to suggest another qualified reviewer this is greatly appreciated.

The information provided in the review request is confidential and should not be shared with third persons without first consulting with the journal.

When deciding whether or not to accept to review, please consider the following:

• Is the paper within your area of expertise? Will you able to judge its quality and provide useful feedback to the author?
• Do you have any bias or conflict of interest regarding either content or the authors of the manuscript?Conflicts of interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review. For more information see Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers developed by COPE.

• Can you meet the deadline?
  If you have any doubts regarding any of these questions, please contact the editorial office.

Type of review practiced by our journal

The review process begins upon submission of the manuscript. For the manuscript to be accepted, at least two independent reviewers must approve it for publication.

Peer review is facilitated by the journal; the editorial office mediates all interactions between reviewers and authors.

Our peer review process is double blind to the extent possible. This means that the authors are not aware of who reviews their paper and, ideally, the reviewers are not aware of the identity of the author. However, we are aware that it is often possible to guess the identity of the authors from the contents of the paper, despite attempts to conceal it. We ask our reviewers that if they suspect the identity of the author(s) they notify the journal if this knowledge raises any issues that would prevent them from supplying an unbiased review as described in the previous chapter.

Peer reviews are not published.

Conducting the review

Carefully read the manuscript and any associated information. Pay special attention to the items detailed on the Peer Review Form that you received with the manuscript. Focus on improvements; what changes would improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process. Do not share the manuscript under review with third persons. Refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, without first obtaining permission from the journal.

Protect the anonymity of the review process. If you think you might have guessed the identity of the authors do not discuss the manuscript with them directly.

Maintain bias-free attitude. If any conflicts of interest become apparent during the review, you should stop reviewing and inform the editorial office.

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics let the journal know immediately. Examples of ethical concerns may include concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. For more information on ethics in research and publishing, see Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers developed by COPE.

If, for any reason, you find you cannot finish the review at all or need an extension of the deadline, notify the editorial office as soon as possible.

Preparing the report

Fill out the review form that was provided to you with the review request. This form is for the editor only, and will not be forwarded to the authors.

If you have questions, comments, or suggestions for the authors, indicate so in the peer review form. Comments to the author can be made directly in the manuscript or in a separate file.

Be professional, objective, constructive and specific in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. Point out any sections that need clarification.

The editorial office will forward the comments to the author, who will be expected to revise the manuscript accordingly. You will receive the revised version for another round of review only in cases where the editorial board is unable to judge whether all your comments have been sufficiently addressed by the author.