All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not: Share the manuscript with colleagues or students, Discuss its content with others Use data, ideas, or concepts for personal research. Confidentiality continues even after the review process is complete

Reviewers should decline the invitation if:
The manuscript involves a competing interest. There is any professional or personal relationship with the authors The reviewer cannot provide an unbiased and objective evaluation. Conflicts must be declared immediately upon receiving the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the specified timeframe. If additional time is needed, prompt communication with the editor is appreciated. If unable to review, the reviewer should decline as early as possible.

Reviewer comments should be: Scientific and evidence-based. Clear, constructive, and precise Respectful and free of personal remarks. Focused on improving the quality of the work. Unbiased evaluation is essential, regardless of the reviewer’s personal views.

Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript on the following aspects:
a. Originality and Contribution
Does the work offer new insights, findings, or interpretations?
Is it relevant to homoeopathy or interdisciplinary domains?
Scientific and Methodological Rigor
Are methods clearly described and appropriate?
Is the reasoning logical and justified?
Are results accurate, valid, and supported by evidence?
Clarity and Organization
Is the writing coherent and well structured?
Are tables, charts, and reference lists clear and appropriate?
d. Ethical Standards
Is informed consent obtained for case reports/human studies?
Are data presented ethically and responsibly?
e. Literature and Referencing
Are references current, relevant, and correctly cited?
Does the manuscript give due credit to prior work?

Reviewers may recommend:
Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject The final decision rests with the Editorial Board, based on reviewer input and editorial judgment.

Review comments should guide authors toward strengthening their work.
Where possible:
Suggest improvements, Point out methodological concerns Highlight unclear sections, Recommend relevant literature Encourage stronger presentation of results and analysis

Reviewers must notify the editor immediately if they identify: Plagiarism or inappropriate similarity. Data fabrication or manipulation, Duplicate submission Ethical issues in study design or reporting The journal will investigate such concerns according to COPE guidelines

Reviewers must notify the editor immediately if they identify: Plagiarism or inappropriate similarity. Data fabrication or manipulation, Duplicate submission Ethical issues in study design or reporting The journal will investigate such concerns according to COPE guidelines.

The review must reflect academic integrity and professionalism.The purpose is to enhance the quality of scientific discourse, not to discourage authors. Reviewer Acknowledgment By accepting a review invitation from IJFIRH, reviewers agree to uphold the principles of ethical, impartial, and high-quality peer review in support of credible homoeopathic and interdisciplinary research.