ARCC Journals are committed to a fair, independent, confidential and constructive peer review process. Peer review supports editorial decision-making, helps authors improve their manuscripts and contributes to the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions; responsibility for the final decision remains with the journal editor. 

ARCC Journals follow a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review model for research manuscripts. Authors and reviewers do not receive each other's identities during the review process. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript, figures, supplementary files and document metadata before files are shared with reviewers. 

Research manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are sent for independent external peer review before acceptance. The review status of other article types is stated in the relevant journal instructions, and any content that is not externally peer reviewed will be clearly identified. 

Special issues, supplements and guest-edited collections are subject to the same publication ethics, reviewer-independence and peer review standards as regular submissions.

Independence: Reviewers and editors must be free from interests or relationships that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, objective assessment. 

Expertise: Manuscripts are evaluated by reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. 

Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts, review reports, correspondence and unpublished information are confidential. 

Fairness: Manuscripts are evaluated on scholarly merit without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, career stage or other irrelevant characteristics. 

Integrity: Concerns regarding research or publication misconduct are reported and assessed under ARCC publication ethics procedures. 

Timeliness: Editors and reviewers are expected to complete their responsibilities within communicated timeframes and to report delays promptly. 

Transparency: The journal clearly describes its review model, decision process and relevant exceptions, and maintains an auditable editorial record.

 Manuscript Submission 

Authors submit manuscripts through the official ARCC online submission system or another submission method expressly approved by the journal. Authors must follow the relevant journal guidelines and provide all required authorship, funding, conflict-of-interest, ethical approval and supporting information. 

Initial Editorial Screening 

The editorial office and handling editor assess each submission before external review. Screening may include: 

• Fit with the journal's aims and scope. 

• Completeness and compliance with submission requirements. 

• Originality, relevance and minimum scholarly quality. 

• Plagiarism or significant text overlap. 

• Ethical approvals, informed consent and animal-welfare documentation where applicable. 

• Authorship, funding and competing-interest disclosures. 

• Data, image, reporting or publication-integrity concerns. 

A manuscript may be returned for correction or declined without external review when it falls outside the journal scope, does not meet minimum requirements, or raises concerns that prevent responsible review. 

Reviewer Selection and Eligibility 

Research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. Reviewers are selected according to: 

• Relevant subject or methodological expertise. 

• Research experience and an appropriate, verifiable publication record. 

• Ability to provide an objective, constructive and timely assessment. 

• Previous review quality and reliability, where known. 

• Absence of real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest. 

Editors may invite additional reviewers, including statistical or specialist reviewers, when the manuscript is multidisciplinary, technically complex, or when reports materially disagree. In an exceptional case where fewer than two external reports are used, the responsible editor must document the reason and ensure appropriate additional editorial oversight. 

Authors may suggest or request the exclusion of potential reviewers. Suggestions are considered but are not binding. The editor retains full responsibility for reviewer selection and must verify reviewer identity, expertise and independence. 

Reviewer Invitation and Conflict Declaration 

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must confirm that they have the appropriate expertise, can meet the requested deadline and have no conflict that could affect impartiality. Reviewers must decline or seek editorial guidance when a conflict exists, including: 

• A current or recent institutional affiliation with an author. 

• Recent or ongoing collaboration, supervision, mentorship or joint funding with an author. 

• A close personal, family or professional relationship. 

• A financial, intellectual, commercial or competitive interest in the outcome. 

• Any circumstance that could reasonably create a perception of bias. 

Review Assessment 

Reviewers assess the manuscript in accordance with the journal's scope and the standards relevant to the discipline. The review may consider: 

• Originality and contribution to the field. 

• Clarity of the research question and objectives. 

• Appropriateness and reproducibility of methods. 

• Reliability of data, analyses and interpretation. 

• Consistency of results, discussion and conclusions. 

• Adequacy and relevance of references. 

• Compliance with applicable reporting and ethical standards. 

• Clarity, organisation and presentation. 

Comments must be evidence-based, specific, respectful and constructive. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, unsupported allegations and requests designed primarily to increase citations to the reviewer's work are not acceptable. 

Revision and Author Response 

Where revision is invited, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. If an author does not agree with a requested change, a clear scholarly justification should be provided. Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the stated timeframe or an extension requested before the deadline. 

Re-review 

A revised manuscript may be assessed by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers depending on the extent of the changes, the issues raised and the expertise required. Further revision may be requested when concerns remain unresolved. 

Editorial Decisions 

After considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses and applicable journal policies, the handling editor may issue one of the following decisions: 

• Accept 

• Minor Revision 

• Major Revision 

• Reject 

• Reject and Resubmit as a New Manuscript 

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor is responsible for the final decision and may seek additional review or editorial advice where reports conflict, expertise is incomplete or ethical concerns arise. Acceptance is based on scholarly merit, journal relevance, methodological soundness and ethical compliance. 

Post-Acceptance Processing 

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, author proof review, DOI registration and online publication. Proof review is intended to correct production errors and does not normally permit substantial changes to the accepted research. Article Processing Charges, where applicable, become payable only after editorial acceptance and do not influence the peer review outcome. 

Submitted manuscripts are privileged and confidential communications. Reviewers, editors and editorial staff must not disclose, distribute or use manuscripts, review reports, correspondence, figures, supplementary files or unpublished data for personal, professional or competitive advantage. 

Reviewers must not involve a colleague, student or third party in a review without prior permission from the journal. Any approved contributor must be identified to the editor and must accept the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest obligations. 

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscript material to public or third-party generative-AI systems where confidentiality, data protection and intellectual-property safeguards cannot be assured. AI tools must not replace independent expert judgement. Any journal-approved use of an AI tool in editorial or review work must be disclosed to the journal, and the human reviewer or editor remains fully accountable for the assessment and decision.

Reviewers and editors must promptly inform the editorial office if they identify or reasonably suspect: 

• Plagiarism, duplicate submission or redundant publication. 

• Data fabrication, falsification or selective reporting. 

• Misleading image or figure manipulation. 

• Citation manipulation or coercive citation requests. 

• Authorship irregularities or undisclosed competing interests. 

• Missing, inadequate or potentially invalid ethics approval or consent. 

• Peer review manipulation, fabricated reviewer identities or identity theft. 

• Undeclared or fraudulent use of artificial intelligence. 

• Any other concern that could affect the reliability, legality or ethical acceptability of the work. 

Reviewers should not investigate authors independently or contact authors directly. The editorial office will assess concerns under the applicable ARCC Publication Ethics procedures and may request evidence, additional review or institutional clarification.

Reviewer misconduct includes, but is not limited to: 

• Breach of confidentiality or unauthorised sharing of manuscript material. 

• Use or appropriation of unpublished ideas, methods or data. 

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest or intentional bias. 

• Delegating a review without permission. 

• Submitting false information, impersonating another person or participating in fabricated peer review. 

• Unreasonable delay intended to disadvantage authors or competitors. 

• Personal, abusive, discriminatory or defamatory comments. 

• Manipulative citation demands or misuse of the review process for personal benefit. 

• Inappropriate use of generative AI or other third-party tools. 

ARCC may disregard a report, discontinue a reviewer's involvement, remove the reviewer from its database, notify relevant institutions or take other proportionate action where misconduct is substantiated.

Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigour, relevance to the journal and ethical compliance. Decisions are independent of Article Processing Charge payments or waivers, sponsorship, advertising, commercial relationships, funding sources, institutional affiliations and external pressure. 

Editors must disclose and recuse themselves from manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists. The manuscript will be assigned to an independent editor who has not been involved in the conflicted relationship or the original decision.

Manuscripts authored by an editor, editorial-board member, guest editor or member of ARCC staff are not handled by that individual. An independent editor oversees reviewer selection, peer review and the final decision. The same review standards apply as for all other submissions. 

Guest editors must declare conflicts of interest and may not make decisions on their own work, work from close collaborators, or manuscripts where impartiality may reasonably be questioned. The journal retains oversight and final responsibility for all special-issue decisions. 

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material error, procedural irregularity or significant misunderstanding affected the outcome. Appeals must be submitted in writing through the journal's official contact channel and should include a clear, evidence-based explanation. An appeal is not a request for a fresh review solely because the author disagrees with the decision. 

Where feasible, an appeal is assessed by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. The journal may consult the Editor-in-Chief, editorial board or an additional independent reviewer. One appeal is normally considered for each decision. The outcome and reasons will be communicated to the author. 

Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, discrimination, unreasonable delay or editorial procedure are handled separately from scientific appeals and may be escalated under ARCC Publication Ethics procedures. 

Review times vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds and the need for specialist assessment. Reviewers receive a requested deadline and should promptly accept, decline or report a likely delay. Authors are informed of material delays where possible. 

ARCC monitors peer review performance and periodically updates average processing times. Current journal-level timing information should be displayed on the relevant journal page or submission system and reviewed regularly for accuracy.

ARCC maintains records of reviewer invitations, identity verification, conflict declarations, reports, editorial decisions, correspondence and key dates in accordance with its record-management requirements. These records support internal quality assurance, investigation of concerns and verification of the editorial process. 

If reviewer names, reports or review information are displayed in article HTML, PDFs or metadata, the information must accurately reflect the completed review process and may identify reviewers only where the reviewer has provided explicit consent and the journal's review model permits disclosure.

Authors: Submit original and ethically compliant work, anonymise files where required, disclose relevant information, respond to review comments and avoid attempts to influence reviewer selection or decisions. 

Reviewers: Provide independent, confidential, timely and constructive assessments; declare conflicts; protect unpublished information; and report ethical concerns. 

Editors: Select suitable independent reviewers, manage conflicts, evaluate reports, communicate decisions, protect confidentiality and take responsibility for the final editorial decision. 

Publisher and Editorial Office: Maintain the submission system, support policy implementation, preserve editorial records, assist with investigations and protect editorial independence. 

ARCC recognises the contribution of reviewers through reviewer profiles, review certificates and other recognition initiatives. Recognition is based on the quality, timeliness, integrity and consistency of review activity. 

Review activity may be considered as one factor in future editorial opportunities; however, completion of a specified number of reviews does not guarantee appointment to an editorial board. Editorial appointments are made separately and consider subject expertise, publication record, ethical conduct, review quality, conflicts of interest, diversity and the needs of the journal. 

• Publication Ethics 

• Role of Reviewers 

• Role of Editors 

• Author Guidelines 

• Complaints and Appeals 

• Article Processing Charges 

ARCC periodically reviews this policy to reflect changes in editorial procedures, technology, research integrity requirements and internationally recognised scholarly publishing practices. The version published on the ARCC website represents the current policy for new submissions. Material changes affecting manuscripts already under review will be communicated where additional action is required. 

Questions, appeals, complaints or reports of suspected peer review misconduct should be submitted through the official ARCC contact and support channels. 

Last reviewed: June 2026