Reviewer Guidelines

The International Journal of Emerging Advances in IVF and Assisted Reproduction welcomes qualified researchers, academicians, clinicians, healthcare professionals, reproductive medicine specialists, embryologists, and subject experts to participate in the peer-review process. Reviewers contribute to maintaining the scientific quality, originality, accuracy, and integrity of published research.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.
  • Assess the originality, scientific and clinical quality, methodology, and relevance of the research.
  • Provide clear, constructive, and professional comments.
  • Identify significant scientific, methodological, clinical, or ethical concerns.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Declare any potential conflict of interest.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers should not:

  • Share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals.
  • Discuss unpublished manuscript content with others.
  • Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
  • Upload confidential manuscript content to external AI tools or unauthorized platforms.

Particular care should be taken when manuscripts contain patient information, fertility treatment data, reproductive health records, genetic information, embryological data, gamete or embryo-related information, or other sensitive clinical data.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider:

  • Originality: Whether the research provides a meaningful contribution to IVF, assisted reproductive technologies, fertility, infertility, reproductive medicine, embryology, or related fields.
  • Scientific Quality: Whether the research is scientifically and clinically sound.
  • Methodology: Whether the methods are appropriate and adequately described.
  • Results: Whether the results are clearly presented and properly supported.
  • Discussion: Whether the findings are appropriately interpreted.
  • Conclusion: Whether the conclusions are supported by the research.
  • References: Whether relevant literature is appropriately cited.
  • Ethical Compliance: Whether applicable ethical requirements, informed consent, participant privacy, reproductive research standards, and other relevant requirements have been addressed.
  • Clarity: Whether the manuscript is logically organized and understandable.

4. Reviewer Comments

Reviewers should provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts.

Comments should:

  • Clearly identify major and minor concerns.
  • Provide specific suggestions where possible.
  • Focus on the scientific and clinical content of the manuscript.
  • Avoid personal, offensive, discriminatory, or inappropriate remarks.
  • Clearly explain concerns regarding methodology, clinical data, embryological findings, statistical analysis, research ethics, or interpretation.

5. Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any personal, professional, financial, academic, or other relationship that could affect their impartiality.

A reviewer should decline an assignment when a significant conflict of interest exists, including relationships involving authors, research institutions, fertility clinics, reproductive healthcare organizations, or competing research interests.

7. Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

If a reviewer identifies potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, unethical research practices, inappropriate handling of patient or participant information, manipulation of clinical or embryological data, or other forms of misconduct, the concern should be reported confidentially to the editorial team with supporting information where available.

8. Timely Review

Reviewers should complete assigned reviews within the timeframe provided by the editorial office.

If a reviewer cannot complete the review on time, they should inform the editorial team as soon as possible.

9. Artificial Intelligence and Review

Reviewers should protect the confidentiality of manuscripts when using technological tools. Unpublished manuscript content should not be entered into publicly accessible AI systems or third-party platforms where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and independence of their evaluations.

10. Ethical Conduct

Reviewers are expected to conduct themselves professionally and impartially. They should not use the peer-review process to obtain unpublished information, promote personal interests, disclose confidential patient or participant information, or unfairly disadvantage competing researchers.

Reviewers should respect the ethical and professional standards applicable to IVF, assisted reproduction, fertility treatment, reproductive medicine, embryology, reproductive genetics, and related clinical research.