Guidelines for Reviewers

Download Reviewer Evaluation Form

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Human Care and Occupation (RCOH) are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. The journal follows a double-blind peer-review system, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Reviewers' reports are essential for the Editorial Committee when making decisions regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer Selection

The Journal appoints reviewers who meet the following criteria:

  • Demonstrated expertise in evaluating manuscripts in the relevant field.
  • Appropriate academic qualifications, preferably a doctoral degree.
  • Research experience in the specific subject area of the manuscript.
  • No conflicts of interest with the authors or the research being evaluated.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review assignment.
  • Decline the invitation promptly if unavailable and, whenever possible, recommend qualified alternative reviewers.
  • Submit the review report within the agreed deadline.
  • Evaluate the manuscript objectively and prepare a clear, constructive, and detailed report.
  • Inform the editors of any suspected research or publication misconduct.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all information contained in the manuscript.

To ensure an efficient editorial process, reviewers are kindly requested to read the following guidelines carefully.

The Journal strictly follows the principles established by COPE. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Timeliness of Response

Timely communication is essential to ensure a fair, efficient, and consistent peer-review process. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline review invitations promptly after considering the manuscript title and abstract.
  • Submit their review within the agreed deadline or immediately notify the Editorial Office if an extension is required.
  • Recommend qualified alternative reviewers if they are unable to complete the review.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any personal, professional, financial, institutional, political, or ideological conflicts of interest that could influence the objectivity of their evaluation. If there is any uncertainty regarding a potential conflict, reviewers should consult the Editorial Committee before proceeding.

Confidentiality

All information contained in submitted manuscripts is strictly confidential. Reviewers must not use, reproduce, distribute, or disclose any part of the manuscript before its official publication.

The identities of both authors and reviewers must remain confidential throughout the editorial process. If a reviewer wishes to involve a collaborator in the evaluation, prior authorization from the Editorial Office must be obtained, and the collaborator's contribution must be acknowledged in the review report.

Suspected Research Misconduct

Any indication of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or other forms of research or publication misconduct should be reported immediately to the Editorial Office for formal investigation.

Editorial Office Contact

Questions regarding ethical issues may be directed to: rcoh@unipamplona.edu.co

Comprehensive Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to complete the official evaluation form by considering, at a minimum, the following criteria:

  1. Authenticity and Originality: Assessment of the manuscript's originality, absence of plagiarism, and contribution of novel ideas or findings.
  2. Relevance and Impact: Evaluation of the manuscript's significance and potential contribution to the journal's readership and the advancement of the discipline.
  3. Scientific Rigor: Assessment of methodological quality, validity of data, soundness of analysis, and reliability of conclusions.
  4. Research Ethics: Verification of compliance with ethical standards, particularly for studies involving human participants, animals, or other sensitive research.
  5. Language Quality: Evaluation of clarity, coherence, precision, and grammatical accuracy of the manuscript written in English.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that help authors improve the scientific quality of their manuscripts. Editorial decisions are based on the comprehensive assessment of all reviewer reports, ensuring a fair, transparent, and rigorous evaluation process.