For reviewers

The International Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Fertility Sciences values the contribution of qualified reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Reviewers play an important role in evaluating manuscripts related to assisted reproductive technologies, fertility, infertility, reproductive medicine, reproductive health, embryology, and related biomedical sciences. The journal's official platform provides a dedicated editorial structure and online submission system.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive, and timely assessment of manuscripts.

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts fairly and independently.
  • Assess the scientific quality and originality of the work.
  • Identify significant methodological or ethical concerns.
  • Provide constructive comments to help authors improve their manuscript.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Declare any potential conflict of interest.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers should not:

  • Share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals.
  • Discuss unpublished research with others.
  • Copy or distribute manuscript content.
  • Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewer comments and recommendations should also be handled confidentially.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should inform the editorial team if they have any relationship or interest that could affect their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Personal relationships with authors.
  • Recent collaboration with an author.
  • Institutional relationships.
  • Financial interests.
  • Direct academic competition.
  • Other professional or personal circumstances.

If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

4. Scientific Evaluation

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on relevant scientific and academic criteria, including:

  • Originality
  • Scientific significance
  • Research objectives
  • Methodology
  • Validity of results
  • Data interpretation
  • Quality of references
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Relevance to the journal's scope

Reviewers should distinguish between major scientific concerns and minor editorial issues.

5. Methodology and Data

Reviewers should evaluate whether the research methodology is appropriate for the stated objectives.

Where applicable, reviewers should consider:

  • Study design
  • Participant or sample selection
  • Experimental procedures
  • Statistical methods
  • Data presentation
  • Reproducibility
  • Limitations
  • Consistency between methods and conclusions

Reviewers should identify unsupported claims or conclusions that are not adequately supported by the presented evidence.

6. Research Ethics

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appears to comply with appropriate research-ethics requirements.

Particular attention may be appropriate for research involving:

  • Human participants
  • Patients
  • Clinical research
  • Reproductive materials
  • Embryos
  • Sensitive medical information
  • Animal research

Potential ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor.

7. Originality and Plagiarism

Reviewers should notify the editorial team if they identify potential:

  • Plagiarism
  • Duplicate publication
  • Redundant publication
  • Unattributed use of previously published material
  • Suspicious similarities with other research

Reviewers should not make accusations without reasonable evidence and should communicate concerns professionally.

8. Tables, Figures, and References

Reviewers should assess whether tables and figures:

  • Clearly present the research findings.
  • Are relevant to the manuscript.
  • Are appropriately described.
  • Support the conclusions.

References should be relevant and appropriately used. Reviewers should identify important missing references where necessary but should avoid recommending citations solely to increase citation counts.

9. Constructive Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should be professional, clear, and constructive.

Reviewers should:

  • Explain significant concerns clearly.
  • Provide specific recommendations.
  • Distinguish major and minor issues.
  • Avoid personal or offensive remarks.
  • Focus criticism on the manuscript rather than the authors.

The purpose of peer review is to improve scholarly quality, not to discourage authors.

10. Recommendation

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide a recommendation to the editorial team, such as:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial process.