Peer review is the mechanism by which ARST protects the scholarly record. Reviewers are asked to judge whether a manuscript's question is worth asking, whether its methods can answer that question, and whether its conclusions are supported by the evidence presented — not whether they would have written the paper the same way.

Who Can Review for ARST?

• Researchers holding a doctoral degree, or equivalent demonstrated expertise, in a subject area covered by the journal.
• Authors of at least two peer-reviewed publications in the relevant field.
• Faculty members, postdoctoral researchers, and experienced industry or clinical practitioners.
• Reviewers with no competing interest in the manuscript, its authors or their institutions.
• Reviewers able to return a considered report within two to three weeks of accepting an invitation.

What Reviewers Are Expected to Do

• Accept or decline an invitation promptly, and declare any conflict of interest.
• Treat the manuscript as a confidential document and not share or use it.
• Provide specific, evidence-based comments rather than general impressions, separated into comments to the editor and comments to the author.
• Identify ethical concerns, suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication.
• Comment on statistical treatment and on the adequacy of the references.
• Give a clear recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.
• Write in a professional, impersonal tone appropriate to a blind review.

Reviewer Recognition

• An official certificate of review issued by the editorial office.
• Annual acknowledgement of reviewers in the final issue of each volume.
• Verified review credit that can be claimed on reviewer recognition platforms.
• Consideration for appointment to the editorial board for sustained contributors.
• APC waiver on one invited review article for outstanding reviewers.