Peer Review Process Guidelines

AUCPS Research Journal Peer Review Process Guidelines

The AUCPS Research Journal follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and originality of all published research. These guidelines provide a structured framework for authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold the highest ethical and academic standards.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review serves the following objectives:

To ensure research quality by evaluating originality, methodology, and significance.
To maintain academic integrity by identifying errors, biases, or ethical concerns.
To provide constructive feedback for authors to improve their work.
To help editors make informed decisions on manuscript acceptance or revision.

2. Peer Review Process Overview

Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s official online submission system.
All submissions must comply with the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.

Editorial Screening (Initial Check)

The editorial team performs a desk review to check for compliance with journal policies, plagiarism, formatting, and scope.
Manuscripts that do not meet submission standards are returned to authors for revision or rejected outright.

Assignment to Reviewers

Suitable independent expert reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise and availability.
The double-blind review process ensures that reviewers do not know the identity of authors and vice versa.

Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, clarity, methodology, ethical considerations, and overall contribution to the field.
Reviewers provide detailed feedback, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement.
A decision recommendation is made: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.

Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers’ feedback and makes a final decision:

Accepted (without changes)
Accepted with Minor Revisions (authors must address minor concerns)
Revise & Resubmit (major revisions required; resubmission will go through another review round)
Rejected (manuscript does not meet journal standards)

Author Revisions

Authors receive reviewer feedback and must submit a revised manuscript with a detailed response letter explaining changes made.
If major revisions were required, the revised manuscript may be sent for a second round of peer review.

Final Decision and Publication

If the manuscript meets the required standards after revisions, it is accepted for publication.
The editorial team performs final copyediting and formatting before publishing the article online.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following key factors:

Criteria	Evaluation Focus
Originality	Is the research novel? Does it contribute new knowledge?
Relevance	Is the manuscript aligned with the journal's scope and objectives?
Methodology	Are the research methods valid, rigorous, and clearly explained?
Clarity	Is the writing well-structured and coherent?
Ethical Compliance	Does the study adhere to ethical standards (e.g., plagiarism, informed consent, conflicts of interest)?
Results & Discussion	Are the findings well-supported by data? Are interpretations justified?

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Confidentiality: Maintain confidentiality and do not share or discuss manuscripts outside the review process.
Impartiality: Provide unbiased, constructive feedback without personal criticism.
Timeliness: Complete the review within the agreed deadline (typically 4 weeks).
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Decline review invitations if there is a personal, financial, or institutional conflict of interest.
Ethical Oversight: Report any ethical concerns such as plagiarism, fabrication, or unethical research practices.

5. Types of Peer Review Decisions

Decision	Meaning	Next Steps
Accept	Manuscript meets all requirements and is ready for publication.	No further revisions needed.
Minor Revisions	Minor improvements required (e.g., language, formatting, small clarifications).	Authors revise and submit final version.
Major Revisions	Significant changes needed (e.g., methodology, data analysis, deeper discussion).	Authors revise and resubmit for another round of review.
Reject	Manuscript is unsuitable for publication (e.g., low-quality, ethical concerns, out of scope).	Authors may submit elsewhere after improving the work.

6. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

The journal follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines to maintain the integrity of the peer review process. The following ethical principles must be upheld:

For Editors

Ensure fair selection of reviewers based on expertise.
Prevent conflicts of interest and editorial bias.
Ensure transparency in review decisions and provide justifications for rejections.

For Reviewers

Decline review requests if they lack expertise or have a conflict of interest.
Provide objective, professional, and constructive feedback.
Report any plagiarism or research misconduct immediately.

For Authors

Respond professionally to reviewer feedback.
Provide clear and transparent data and research methods.
Ensure that no ghost writing or honorary authorship is involved.

7. Appeals and Disputes

If an author disagrees with a review decision, they may submit a formal appeal under the following conditions:

Appeals must be based on factual or procedural errors, not personal disagreements.

Authors must provide clear justifications for their appeal, responding to specific reviewer comments.

Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial panel, and their decision is final.

8. Timeline of Peer Review Process

Stage	Duration
Initial Editorial Screening	1 week
Assignment of Reviewers	1 week
Peer Review Process	4 weeks
Editorial Decision	1 week
Author Revisions	2–4 weeks (depending on revisions)
Final Decision & Copyediting	2 weeks
Publication	July and December Respectively