Become a Reviewer

The International Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Fertility Sciences welcomes qualified researchers, academicians, clinicians, healthcare professionals, and subject-matter experts who are interested in contributing to the peer-review process. Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of published research.

1. Who Can Become a Reviewer?

Researchers and professionals with relevant academic or professional expertise may apply to become reviewers. Suitable areas include:

  • Assisted reproductive technologies
  • Fertility and infertility
  • Reproductive medicine
  • Reproductive endocrinology
  • Embryology and reproductive biology
  • Male and female reproductive health
  • Maternal and pregnancy research
  • Reproductive genetics
  • Fertility preservation
  • Biomedical and clinical sciences
  • Related interdisciplinary research areas

2. Reviewer Qualifications

Applicants are expected to have:

  • Relevant academic qualifications or professional experience.
  • Knowledge and expertise in their selected subject area.
  • Research or publication experience where applicable.
  • The ability to critically evaluate scientific manuscripts.
  • Good understanding of research methodology and academic writing.
  • Commitment to ethical and confidential peer review.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly.
  • Assess the scientific quality and originality of submitted research.
  • Examine the appropriateness of research methods and analysis.
  • Identify important strengths and weaknesses.
  • Provide clear and constructive comments to authors.
  • Identify potential ethical or publication concerns.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Declare any conflict of interest.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should not accept a manuscript if they have a personal, professional, financial, or academic conflict that could affect their impartiality.

Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the editorial team before accepting the review.

6. Quality of Reviewer Reports

Reviewer comments should be:

  • Professional and respectful.
  • Specific and evidence-based.
  • Relevant to the submitted manuscript.
  • Helpful to authors in improving their work.
  • Free from personal criticism or inappropriate language.

Reviewers should distinguish between major scientific concerns and minor corrections.

7. Research Ethics

Reviewers should pay attention to potential concerns involving:

  • Research integrity
  • Human participant protection
  • Informed consent
  • Clinical research ethics
  • Data integrity
  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication
  • Fabrication or falsification of data
  • Appropriate citation and attribution

Any serious concern should be communicated confidentially to the editorial team.

8. Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should use artificial intelligence responsibly. Confidential manuscript content should not be uploaded to external AI systems or other services where confidentiality cannot be assured.

AI tools should not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment.

9. How to Become a Reviewer

Interested researchers can register on the journal's online platform and provide relevant professional and academic information. The journal's official website provides Register, Login, Submissions, and Editorial Masthead sections for users and contributors.

Reviewer applications may be considered based on the applicant's expertise and the journal's reviewing requirements.

10. Reviewer Selection

The editorial team may consider:

  • Academic qualifications
  • Research expertise
  • Subject specialization
  • Publication experience
  • Previous peer-review experience
  • Availability and responsiveness
  • Potential conflicts of interest

Selection of reviewers remains an editorial decision.