All journals under the umbrella of Open AfAc Publisher adhere to a double-blind peer review model, wherein the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, and the authors' identity remains anonymous to the reviewers. Every accepted article (except specific Editorials released by the Editors) undergoes a rigorous and comprehensive review process to assess its novelty, scientific content, and academic integrity.
Peer Review Process
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment conducted by the managing editor and the Academic Editor. The managing editor conducts a preliminary plagiarism check and evaluates the manuscript's suitability vis-à-vis the journal's scope and formatting requirements. Manuscripts that pass this initial check are then assigned to an Academic Editor after the disclosure of any conflicts of interest, as per the provided Checklist. Typically, the Academic Editor is an Editor-in-Chief; however, in certain cases, another Editorial Board member, a Guest Editor, or an expert active in the field may be assigned this role for specific papers. The Academic Editor first determines whether the manuscript warrants full peer review. If the Academic Editor deems the manuscript lacking in sufficient quality or its subject matter inappropriate for the journal, it will be rejected without further evaluation. Manuscripts that meet the Academic Editor's initial criteria are then forwarded to experts for comprehensive peer review.
Peer reviewers are selected based on their substantial expertise and experience in the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript's quality in terms of its significance, novelty, integrity, presentation, and scientific soundness. Reviewers are expected to provide a constructive report within 14 days of accepting the invitation to review. Typically, each manuscript undergoes evaluation by at least two external reviewers, who furnish detailed comments and an overall recommendation (“Acceptance”, “Minor Revision”, “Major Revision”, or “Rejection”).
The review reports are then submitted to the Academic Editor for a decision on publication. In instances where two initial reports yield conflicting opinions or the Academic Editor deems additional reports necessary for informed decision-making, more than two reports may be solicited.
Manuscripts Submitted by the Editorial Board and Guest Editors
Manuscripts submitted by the Editorial Board and Guest Editors are managed separately by other editors, with the submitting editor excluded from the decision-making and review processes.
For further details regarding the editorial process, please consult the Editorial Process section of individual journals.
Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:
- They maintain independence from all authors and their respective institutions.
- They possess expertise in the same or related research areas as the manuscript and are capable of impartially assessing its originality, validity, and significance.
- They have recent publications within the same research domain as the manuscript.
- They can complete the peer review within the specified timeframe.
Authors' Suggested Reviewers
Authors are encouraged to suggest reviewers whom they believe are well-suited to assess their work, especially when highly specialized expertise is required. However, the decision to invite these suggested reviewers rests with the journal. Authors should furnish a list of potential reviewers, including their names, email addresses, research areas, affiliations, and ORCID identifiers (if available). Suggested reviewers:
- Should have recent publications pertinent to the submitted paper.
- Should not have recent publications/submissions with any of the authors.
- Should not share, or have recently shared, an institutional affiliation with any of the authors.
- Should not be current or recent collaborators of any of the authors.
- Should not have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.
- Should not have a financial interest in the work.
Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are advised to adhere to the following guidelines:
- Disclose any relevant conflicts of interest before commencing the review. Reviewers may withdraw from the review if a conflict of interest exists.
- Maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process. Reviewers must refrain from disclosing any information about the manuscript or contacting authors without prior approval from the journal editors.
- Destroy all copies of the manuscript upon completing the review process.
- Provide an objective and unbiased evaluation, irrespective of nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or any other characteristics of the authors, manuscript origins, or commercial considerations.
- Report any potential misconduct encountered during the review process, such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, or breaches of research ethics.
- •Refrain from requesting that authors cite their own papers unless there is a strong scholarly rationale.
- Submit review reports within the designated timeframe. Extensions may be requested if necessary.
Other Participants and their Responsibilities
Managing Editor: The managing editor oversees the initial check, including the evaluation of scope suitability, format integrity, and plagiarism screening using iThenticate. Additionally, they are responsible for identifying suitable reviewers and facilitating communication between authors, reviewers, and the Academic Editor.
Academic Editor: The Academic Editor assesses the eligibility of manuscripts for peer review and renders the final decision to accept or reject based on the review reports. The Academic Editor oversees the entire review process and evaluates the academic merit of the manuscript. Typically, the Academic Editor is the Editor-in-Chief, although in some instances, another Editorial Board member, a Guest Editor, or an expert active in the field may assume the role of Academic Editor for specific papers. The name of the Academic Editor will be listed alongside the paper upon publication.
For comprehensive guidelines on peer review, please refer to the Peer Review Guidelines provided for individual journals.
