Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should consider whether they have sufficient expertise and adequate time to conduct a meaningful evaluation.

• Confirm that the manuscript falls within your area of expertise.
• Ensure that you can complete the review within the requested deadline.
• Check whether you have any personal, professional, financial or academic conflict of interest.
• Inform the editor immediately if you are unable to provide an objective review.
• Decline the invitation if you do not have sufficient subject expertise.

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or activity that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment of a manuscript. Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

Potential conflicts may include:

• Recent collaboration with one or more authors.
• Direct competition involving closely related research.
• Personal relationships or disputes with an author.
• Financial or commercial interests related to the work.
• Institutional relationships that could affect impartiality.

Reviewers should never use unpublished information obtained through peer review to advance their own research or professional interests.

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must protect the manuscript and all information obtained during the review process.

• Do not share the manuscript with colleagues or third parties without permission from the editor.
• Do not discuss the manuscript publicly.
• Do not copy, distribute or retain manuscript material unnecessarily.
• Do not use unpublished ideas, methods, data or results for personal research.
• Delete or securely dispose of manuscript files after completing the review when instructed by the journal.

A high-quality review should help the authors improve their manuscript while providing the editor with sufficient information to make an informed editorial decision.

Recommended approach

1. Begin with a brief overall assessment of the manuscript.
2. Identify the major strengths and weaknesses.
3. Comment specifically on methodology, analysis and interpretation.
4. Identify important omissions, inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.
5. Distinguish major concerns from minor corrections.
6. Provide practical suggestions for improvement.
7. Ensure that comments are professional, respectful and supported by clear reasoning.

Reviewers should avoid

• Personal criticism of authors.
• Discriminatory or offensive language.
• Unnecessary demands to cite the reviewer's own work.
• Requests unrelated to scientific quality.
• Unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct.
• Using the review process to promote personal interests.

After completing the assessment, reviewers may provide a recommendation to the editor. The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review.

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor changes.
• Minor Revision: Limited corrections are required before publication.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes, additional analysis or clarification are required.
• Reject: The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Reviewers should alert the editor if they identify serious concerns that may affect the integrity of the manuscript.

• Possible plagiarism or substantial text overlap.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Fabrication or falsification of data.
• Manipulation or inappropriate presentation of images.
• Major methodological or statistical irregularities.
• Unethical research involving human or animal subjects.
• Potential undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should communicate such concerns privately to the editor rather than making public accusations.

Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality when using digital tools or artificial intelligence systems during peer review.

• Do not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript content to external AI systems unless the journal has expressly permitted such use and confidentiality can be assured.
• Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy and originality of their submitted review.
• AI-generated suggestions should not replace the reviewer's own expert assessment.
• Any AI use must comply with the journal's current policy and applicable confidentiality requirements.

Current ICMJE recommendations specifically emphasize confidentiality and caution reviewers regarding the use of AI technologies during peer review.

Advanced Scientific Research expects every reviewer to uphold the highest standards of scholarly and professional conduct.

• Maintain independence and impartiality.
• Respect confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Declare conflicts of interest.
• Provide honest, evidence-based and constructive feedback.
• Respect authors regardless of their background or institutional affiliation.
• Never appropriate unpublished research, ideas or data.
• Complete reviews within agreed deadlines whenever possible.

These principles are consistent with established peer-review ethics guidance from organizations such as COPE and ICMJE.