International Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences

for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer review is the foundation of scholarly publishing. Reviewers help the editors of the International Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences (IJABS) make fair, evidence-based decisions and help authors improve their work. These guidelines are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). By accepting an invitation to review, reviewers agree to follow them.

1. Peer Review Process

All submissions are first screened by the editorial office for scope, completeness, and similarity with previously published work. Manuscripts that pass the screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers through the journal’s online system (Open Journal Systems). The journal uses double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision, taking into account the reviewers’ reports. Reviewers’ recommendations are advisory.

Reviewers are not paid, and the journal charges authors no fees. Review reports and decisions are never influenced by financial considerations.

2. Accepting or Declining an Invitation

  • Accept an invitation only if the manuscript falls within your area of expertise, you have no conflict of interest, and you can complete the review by the deadline.
  • If you cannot review the manuscript, decline promptly so that the editors can invite another reviewer. Suggesting alternative qualified reviewers is welcome, but the editors make the final choice.
  • Do not accept an invitation on behalf of someone else, and do not pass the manuscript to a colleague without the editor’s permission. If a colleague contributes to the review (for example, a doctoral student), the editor must be informed in advance and the colleague’s name given.

3. Confidentiality

  • The manuscript and all related materials are confidential. Do not share, discuss, or cite them, and do not use any information, data, or ideas from the manuscript for your own research or advantage before it is published.
  • Do not contact the authors directly. All communication goes through the editorial office.
  • Do not try to identify the authors. If you believe you know who the authors are, or the manuscript reveals their identity, inform the editor. This does not by itself disqualify you from reviewing, unless it creates a conflict of interest.
  • Delete or destroy the manuscript files after completing the review, unless the editor asks you to keep them for a revised version.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline, or inform the editor before proceeding, if they have any of the following with respect to the manuscript or its authors:

  • Recent collaboration, co-authorship, or a close personal or professional relationship.
  • Employment at the same institution, or a financial interest in the topic, product, or organization involved.
  • Direct competition with the authors’ research, or strong personal or ideological bias that could affect objectivity.

5. Timeliness

Reviews should be submitted within three weeks of accepting the invitation. If you need more time, inform the editorial office as early as possible so that a new deadline can be agreed. Delays slow the publication of the authors’ work.

6. What to Assess

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript:

  • Originality and significance: Does the study address an important question and add to existing knowledge in applied behavioral sciences?
  • Title and abstract: Are they accurate, informative, and consistent with the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Is the background adequately described, and are the aims and hypotheses clearly stated?
  • Methods: Are the design, setting, sampling, measures, interventions, and statistical analyses appropriate and described in enough detail to be replicated? Are validated instruments used?
  • Results: Are the results clearly presented, complete, and consistent with the tables and figures? Is the statistical analysis correct?
  • Discussion and conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the data? Are the limitations acknowledged and the findings placed in the context of previous research?
  • References: Are they relevant, up to date, and accurate? Is important related work missing?
  • Tables and figures: Are they necessary, clear, and correctly labeled?
  • Language and presentation: Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized? Reviewers are not expected to correct the language in detail.

7. Ethical Aspects to Check

  • For studies involving human participants: a statement of approval by an ethics committee (with the approval code), compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and informed consent.
  • For clinical trials: registration in a recognized trial registry, with the registration number.
  • Use of the relevant reporting guideline (for example, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, COREQ, or SRQR).
  • Declarations of conflict of interest, funding, author contributions, data availability, and use of artificial intelligence tools.
  • Signs of plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data or images, or inappropriate division of one study into several papers.
  • Protection of participants’ privacy: no identifying information should appear in the text, tables, or figures without consent.

8. Writing the Review Report

A helpful report is objective, specific, and constructive. Reviewers should structure the report as follows:

  • Summary: A brief description of the manuscript and its main contribution, showing that you have understood the work.
  • Major comments: Serious concerns about the design, analysis, interpretation, or ethics that must be addressed. Explain each concern clearly and, where possible, suggest how it can be resolved.
  • Minor comments: Smaller issues such as unclear wording, missing details, or errors in tables, figures, and references, with page or line numbers where possible.
  • Confidential comments to the editor: Any concerns about ethics or misconduct, and your recommendation. These comments are not shared with the authors.

Please keep comments to the authors professional and respectful. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Do not ask authors to cite your own publications unless there is a clear scientific reason. Support all criticism with reasons and, where relevant, references.

9. Recommendations

Reviewers should select one of the following recommendations and justify it in the report:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without changes or with only very minor editing.
  • Minor revision: The manuscript is sound but requires small changes, which the editor can verify without a further review.
  • Major revision: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes. It will be sent for further review after revision.
  • Reject: The manuscript has fundamental flaws in design, analysis, ethics, or originality, or is outside the scope of the journal.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Uploading a manuscript, or any part of it, into a generative AI tool is a breach of confidentiality and is not permitted. Reviewers must not use AI tools to write or generate their review reports. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and quality of their reports.

11. Suspected Misconduct

If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or any other ethical problem, report it confidentially to the editor, with the evidence supporting your concern. Do not investigate the matter yourself or discuss it with the authors or other parties. The editors will handle the case according to COPE flowcharts.

12. Revised Manuscripts and Appeals

Reviewers may be asked to evaluate revised versions. In this case, assess whether the authors have adequately responded to the earlier comments and whether the revisions have introduced new problems. If authors appeal a decision, the editor-in-chief may seek an additional opinion; reviewers should cooperate and remain objective.

13. Recognition

The journal values the contribution of its reviewers. Reviewers’ names are listed annually in the journal’s acknowledgment of reviewers, without linking them to specific manuscripts, and a certificate of reviewing is available on request.

14. Contact

For questions about the review process, please contact the editorial office at: ijabs@sbmu.ac.ir

Developed By

Open Journal Systems