Manuscripts assigned for review are confidential. Reviewers may not share, cite, or use a manuscript's content for any purpose outside the review itself, and must not contact the corresponding author directly at any point in the process.

International Journal of Academic Research Center (IJARC) is looking for experienced scholars and researchers who want to offer their knowledge to the peer-review process. Peer reviewers are expected to: Evaluate manuscripts objectively, equitably, and constructively. Assess the originality, significance, technique, analysis, and contribution of the presented research. Make constructive recommendations to help authors improve their manuscripts. Maintain confidentiality during the review process. Identify any potential ethical, methodological, or reporting problems. Complete reviews within the agreed-upon dates. Declare any potential conflicts of interest before taking an assignment. Ideal Peer Reviewer Qualifications: Hold a master's or doctorate in a relevant subject. Have exhibited research or professional experience in their field of specialization. Have expertise in carrying out, publishing, or evaluating scholarly research. Have strong analytical and academic writing skills. Be willing to engage in a rigorous and ethical peer-review process. Early-career researchers with relevant knowledge and documented academic experience are encouraged to apply.

Reviewers must decline any assignment where a conflict of interest exists — including a close personal or professional relationship with an author, a competing project, or prior involvement with the manuscript. Declines should be flagged to the editor as soon as the assignment is received.

Manuscripts are scored against twelve criteria: presentation, scholarship, conceptualization, methodology, data, analysis, discussion, implications, conclusions, references, contribution, and originality. Each criterion is rated on a scale of 1 ("Poor") to 10 ("Excellent").

Not every criterion applies to every manuscript. If a criterion falls outside your expertise or the manuscript's scope, mark it N/A rather than assigning a score.

A numeric score alone is not a complete review. Reviewers are expected to justify each score with specific, constructive comments the corresponding author can act on, and to summarize their overall recommendation in the general comments to the editor.

Reviewer and author identities are withheld from one another throughout the process. Reviewers should avoid including identifying information in their comments and should not attempt to determine an author's identity from the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation within the assigned window. A reviewer who cannot meet the deadline, or who accepted an assignment they are no longer able to complete, should notify the editor promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned.

Reviewers recommend accept, needs revision, or reject; the executive board issues the final decision. If an author appeals a decision on grounds of factual error, the original reviewer may be asked to respond to the specific point raised.