Peer Review Process

E-ISSN: 2640-2874 · Ensuring rigor, fairness, and transparency in scientific publishing

Overview

The peer review process at APCR is designed to guarantee the publication of high-quality, ethically sound, and impactful research. Manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review in which neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. This ensures impartiality and fairness in evaluation.

Steps in the Process

  1. Submission: Authors submit manuscripts via the online system, including blinded files for review.
  2. Initial Screening: Editors evaluate scope, format, plagiarism check, and ethical compliance.
  3. Reviewer Selection: Experts with relevant expertise are invited to review.
  4. Review: Reviewers provide detailed assessments of methodology, novelty, clarity, and ethics.
  5. Editorial Decision: Based on reports, the editor makes one of several possible decisions.
  6. Revision and Resubmission: Authors address comments and resubmit for further review if needed.
  7. Final Decision: After satisfactory revisions, the manuscript is accepted.
  8. Production: Accepted papers enter copyediting, typesetting, and online publication.

Types of Decisions

  • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.
  • Minor Revision: Small changes required before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Substantial improvements required; resubmission is needed.
  • Reject: Manuscript does not meet journal standards or scope.

Timelines

APCR strives for efficiency. Initial editorial screening takes approximately 1 week. Reviewers are asked to complete reviews within 2–3 weeks. The average time from submission to first decision is about 4 weeks, though complex cases may take longer.

Confidentiality

All submissions and reviews are treated as confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing, discussing, or using manuscript content outside of the review process. Editors ensure that communications occur within the system to maintain records.

Reviewer Selection and Quality Control

Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, publication record, and prior experience. To ensure quality:

  • Editors avoid conflicts of interest in reviewer assignment.
  • At least two independent reviewers are engaged for each manuscript.
  • Reports are evaluated for thoroughness, constructiveness, and professionalism.

Author Revisions

Authors must address reviewer comments point-by-point. A response document highlighting revisions is required for resubmission. Failure to adequately address concerns may result in rejection.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by providing detailed justifications. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor not involved in the original decision to ensure fairness.

Integrity and Fairness

The peer review system is continually monitored to ensure fairness, minimize bias, and maintain transparency. Editors reserve the right to reject submissions at any stage if ethical violations are detected.

Contact

Questions about the peer review process can be directed to the editorial office:

[email protected]