Peer Review Policy

All research articles, short communications, and review articles submitted to APJEBE undergo editorial screening and external peer review. This page describes the process in line with the COPE Core Practices and the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Type of review

The journal uses double-blind peer review: the identities of the authors are hidden from reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file and leave it in the submission metadata.

Process

  1. Initial screening. The editorial office checks the submission for completeness, fit to scope, ethical requirements, and similarity to published work.
  2. Editorial assessment. An editor decides whether the manuscript is suitable for external review. Manuscripts that are out of scope, incomplete, or of insufficient quality may be rejected at this stage without external review.
  3. External review. Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest and to complete the review within the time stated in the invitation.
  4. Decision. The handling editor decides to accept, to request minor or major revisions, or to reject, based on the reviewers' reports and their own judgement. Reviewers' recommendations are advisory.
  5. Revision. Authors respond to every point raised. Revised manuscripts may go back to the original reviewers, or to new ones.
  6. Acceptance and publication. Accepted articles are copyedited and published open access. The journal records the dates of submission, acceptance, and publication on each article.

Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are chosen for their expertise and with regard to conflicts of interest. The editors do not select reviewers from the author's own institution or recent co-authors. Authors may suggest reviewers, but the editors decide whether to use them, and authors may not insist on, or exclude, particular reviewers beyond a reasoned request.

Standards for reviewers

  • Reviews must be objective, constructive, and respectful. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable.
  • Reviewers must keep the manuscript confidential, must not share it with others without the editor's permission, and must not use generative AI tools to process it.
  • Reviewers who suspect plagiarism, fabrication, duplicate publication, or an ethical problem should inform the editor in confidence.
  • Reviewers who have a conflict of interest, or who cannot review in good time, should decline.

Timelines

The journal aims to send authors a first decision within 8 weeks of submission. Reviewers are asked to return reports within 3 weeks. Authors are asked to return revisions within the deadline set in the decision letter.

Editors' manuscripts

Manuscripts by editors or editorial board members follow the same process and are handled independently, as described in the Publication Ethics statement.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal as described in the Complaints and Appeals policy.

Recognition of reviewers

The journal values the work of its reviewers and encourages the use of ORCID and other services to record review activity. Reviewers' identities are never disclosed without their consent.