Editorial Process

The AJCT Editorial Process

AJCT operates a rigorous and transparent peer-review process that aims to maximize quality. Peer-review is handled by researchers and scholars.

We believe that peer-review needs to be efficient, rigorous, and fair for everyone involved.

In AJCT journal, peer-review is a single-blind assessment with at least three independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and Special Issue topics, and appointing new Editorial Board members.

A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below.

The AJCT editorial process.

Screening Check 

Immediately after submission, the journal’s Managing Editor will perform an initial check to assess:

  • Check of Similarity index ( Plagiarism check);
  • Overall suitability of the manuscript to the journal/section/Special Issue;
  • Manuscript adherence to high quality research and ethical standards;
  • Standards of rigor to qualify for further review.

The academic editor, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions or an Editorial Board member in case of a conflict of interest and of regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows, will be notified of the submission and invited to perform a check and recommend reviewers. Academic editors can decide to continue with the peer-review process, reject a manuscript, or request revisions before peer-review.

Peer-review

From submission to final decision or publication, one support team member coordinates the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, academic editors and reviewers.

The process is double-blind method, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, as well the  reviewer is unaware of the author’s identity.

At least three review reports are collected for each submitted article. Suggestions of reviewers can be made by the academic editor during pre-check. Alternatively, editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.

Authors can recommend potential reviewers. AJCT staff ensure that there are no potential conflicts of interest and will not consider those with competing interests. Authors can also enter the names of potential peer-reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer-review of their manuscript, during the initial submission of the manuscript. The editorial team will respect these requests as long as they do not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

If the journal has a reviewer board, these reviewers could apply to review a submitted manuscript should the authors agree with this option during submission.

The following checks are applied to all reviewers:

  • That they hold no conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
  • That they hold a PhD (exceptions are made in some fields, e.g., medicine);
  • They must have recent publications indexed by SCOPUS/ SCI indexed Journals in the field of the submitted paper;

Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:

  • Have the necessary expertise to judge manuscript quality;
  • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer-review;
  • Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided 7–10 days to write their review via our online platform, Extensions can be granted on request.

For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within seven working days. Extensions can also be granted on request.

 

Open Peer-Review Option

AJCT journal operate an open peer-review option, meaning that the authors have the option to publish the review reports and author responses with the published paper (often referred to as open reports). In addition, reviewers may choose to sign their reports if the review is published, in which case the reviewer name appears on the review report (referred to as open identity). The default option is for reviewers to remain anonymous and for reports not to be published, reviewers and authors respectively must opt into this option. If an article is rejected no details will be published. Open peer-review has the benefit of increasing transparency about the review process and providing further information about the paper for interested readers. We encourage authors to choose open review.

Revision

In cases where only minor or major revisions are recommended, Ediotor will request that the author revise the paper before referring to the academic editor. In cases of conflicting review reports, or where there are one or more recommendations for rejection, the academic editor will be requested for their judgement before a decision about revisions is communicated to authors.

Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version. By default, reviewers who request major revisions or recommend rejection will be sent the revised manuscript. All reviewers can access the most recent version of the manuscript.

A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. If more rounds are required according to the reviewers, Editor  request a decision from the academic editor.

Editor Decision

Acceptance decisions on manuscripts can be taken by the academic editor after peer-review once a minimum of three review reports have been received. Acceptance decisions are taken by an academic editor (the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board member). Guest Editors are not able to take decisions on their own papers which will instead be assigned to a suitable Editorial Board member. When making a decision, we expect that the academic editor checks the following:

  • The suitability of selected reviewers;
  • Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
  • Overall scientific quality of the paper.

The academic editor can select from the following options: Accept in current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, ask author for revision, or ask for an additional reviewer.

Reviewers make recommendations, and the Editors-in-Chief or academic editors are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision for the benefit of the authors and reviewers.

In some instances, an academic editor supports a decision of manuscript acceptance despite a reviewer recommendation to reject.  EDitor will seek a second independent opinion from an Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief before communicating a final decision to the authors.

Articles can only be accepted for publication by an academic editor. Edior  then inform authors. 

Editorial Board members (including Editors-in-Chief) are not involved in the processing of their own academic work. Their submissions are assigned and revised by at least three independent reviewers. Decisions are made by other Editorial Board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors.

Production

AJCT's in-house teams perform production on all manuscripts, including language editing, copy editing, and conversion to XML. Language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff. In the small number of cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, we offer authors an English editing service for an additional fee (with authors’ prior approval). The authors are also free to use other English editing services, or consult a native English-speaking colleague—the latter being our preferred option.

Editorial Independence

 

All articles published by AJCT are peer-reviewed and assessed by our independent Editorial Boards, and AJCT staff are not involved in decisions to accept manuscripts. When making a decision, we expect the academic editor to make it based solely upon:

  • The suitability of selected reviewers;
  • Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
  • Overall scientific quality of the paper.

In all of our journals and in every aspect of our operation, AJCT policies are informed by the mission to make science and research findings open and accessible as widely and rapidly as possible.