The Peer Reviewing Guidelines provide considerations for assessing the suitability of submitted material for publication, facilitating an efficient peer review process. Peer reviewers have the opportunity to provide comments to the author and the editor, as well as to the editor alone.

Manuscripts submitted in the Original Research section are considered confidential. The peer reviewer will receive the manuscript with all references to the author omitted, if technically feasible. Unless the peer reviewer declares otherwise, they shall remain anonymous to the author. If another peer reviewer comments on the manuscript, they will receive the comments of the previous peer reviewer(s), with the name(s) omitted. If the peer reviewer becomes aware that they cannot objectively evaluate the manuscript or has any conflict of interest, either with the putative authors or with the research, they are obliged to decline the invitation.

The peer reviewer should strive to ensure that their comments are objective and supported by professional arguments and evidence. While the peer reviewer's opinion on a given problem or research may differ from that of the author, it is always recommended that resulting opinions are supported by scientific evidence, thereby enhancing the acceptance of dissenting opinions and the professional quality of the manuscript. The peer reviewer should only request a reference to their communication in cases where there is an absolute professional justification. They should be objective, assist the authors in improving the manuscript, and refrain from using offensive language. The peer reviewer should endeavor to meet the deadline for the peer review.

Peer reviewers need to remember that all manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential and may not be shared with third parties without permission. If the involvement of a third party is required for certain issues, this should always be discussed with the responsible editor, who may permit it if necessary. Peer reviewers are required to declare, before providing a peer review, that they have no bias or interest in the subject matter, results, and conclusions of the manuscript that might affect the peer review. If the peer reviewer suspects plagiarism or other ethical misconduct in connection with the manuscript, they must immediately report it to the editorial board of the journal. The COPE Guidelines shall prevail in all matters relating to the ethics of peer review. It is recommended that the Author's Guidelines of the Journal APIS be consulted before preparing a peer review. As a general point of reference for manuscripts, the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" apply. The peer review can be prepared by completing the peer review form appropriate to the type of manuscript. These criteria are also available for authors at the end of the Author's Guidelines.

PEER REVIEW CRITERIA OF RESEARCH ARTICLES

Is the topic of the publication relevant to the objectives of the journal (Is the manuscript current and relevant to the readers of the journal, based on the national and international literature, national health promotion objectives, challenges, and practices?)

Does the manuscript fit to the article type indicated by the author, i.e., does it report on their research results not published elsewhere?

Can translation, secondary publication, and plagiarism be excluded?

Is the author clear about the aim of the article? (Did the author explain the relevance of the topic, and refer to relevant backgrounds?)

Is the methodology used in the study described in sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate the study? (Does it clearly describe the circumstances in which the research data were generated, such as data sources, sampling method, or the questionnaire used? Does it describe in sufficient detail the method of analysis used?)

Did the author choose an appropriate data collection and analysis methodology for the topic of the study? (Are the study data and the analytical procedures chosen appropriately for the analysis?)

Does it adequately present the results of the author's study and the conclusions are drawn? (Does the author describe the limitations of the study? Does the author compare with previously published study results? Are the results of the study clearly distinguished from the author's conclusions? Are the conclusions supported by the results presented? Are the conclusions related to the objectives of the paper?)

Are the literature references in the article adequate? (Are all the relevant literature references to the topic discussed included? Are there any references not related to the topic?)

Are the figures and tables in the article appropriate (Are the figures and tables labeled and captioned appropriately from a technical point of view? Can the captioned figures and tables be understood alone?)