Peer Review Policy

Review Model

APCR follows a double-blind peer review model:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
• Editorial staff manage anonymization to ensure impartiality.

Stages of Peer Review

1. Initial Editorial Screening: Manuscripts are checked for scope, formatting, ethics compliance, and plagiarism.
2. Reviewer Selection: At least two qualified experts are invited based on subject matter expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.
3. Review Process: Reviewers evaluate novelty, significance, methodology, clarity, and ethical compliance. They provide structured reports with recommendations.
4. Editorial Decision: The editor weighs reviewer feedback and may request revisions, accept, or reject the submission.
5. Revision and Resubmission: Authors address comments with a detailed response letter. Revised manuscripts may undergo re-review.
6. Final Decision and Publication: The editor confirms final acceptance, after which the manuscript proceeds to production and publication.

Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

• Selected reviewers are experts in the relevant subfield.
• They must evaluate objectively, provide constructive criticism, and respect confidentiality.
• Conflicts of interest must be declared and may disqualify a reviewer.
• Reports should be detailed, specific, and submitted within the agreed timeline.

Timelines

APCR strives for efficiency while maintaining rigor. Typical timelines are:

• Initial editorial screening: 5–7 days.
• Reviewer assignment: within 1 week of passing screening.
• Reviewer reports: 2–3 weeks.
• Author revision: up to 3 weeks for minor revisions, longer for major revisions.
• Final decision: usually within 1 week of revised submission.

Decision Categories

• Accept — suitable for publication without further changes.
• Minor Revisions — small changes needed; publication likely after correction.
• Major Revisions — substantial improvements required; manuscript may need re-review.
• Reject — unsuitable due to lack of originality, methodological flaws, or scope misalignment.

Transparency and Confidentiality

All manuscripts and reviewer comments are confidential. Authors may share review reports only with their co-authors. Reviewers must not use or disclose content from manuscripts they evaluate. Editorial staff ensure that identities are protected under the double-blind model.

Post-Publication Peer Review

APCR supports ongoing scholarly dialogue. Readers may submit comments, letters to the editor, or critiques of published articles. Substantive concerns are evaluated by editors, and if necessary, corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions may follow.