Peer Review Model: The review process for APJCP is a single-blind review procedure. This means the authors not being aware of the identity of the reviewers, but reviewers being aware of the identity of the authors. Under certain circumstances and upon special request, the APJCP is willing to conduct a double-blind review of a manuscript.
In the process of submission, authors are invited to suggest potential reviewers for their paper (including address and email). The reviewers MUST declare conflict of interest. The suggested reviewer may or may not participate in the reviewing of the manuscript that they are associated as suggested reviewers.
The review process: Submitted manuscripts are screened upon receipt to evaluate its relevancy to the scope of the journal as well as degree of novelty. The editorial team does the initial screening. Submissions that are in line with the scope of the journal and include an acceptable degree of novelty, will undergo a peer review process. The review process includes review of the manuscript by at least two independent reviewers and one of author suggested reviewers (all reviewers must declare conflict of interest). Recommendation of the reviewers is the bases to decide the fate of the submission. When a decision is reached, it is sent to the authors by email, including the comments of the referees. Possible decisions after review are: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, re-submit, and reject.
If a manuscript was accepted with revision, the author will be notified and the comments of the reviewers is sent to authors through our editorial management system. The revised manuscript by the author should be accompanied by a detailed reply to reviewers’ comments, and changes performed should be highlighted in the text of the revised manuscript.
Any questions concerning the requested changes/additional work or deadline extension, should be addressed to the Editorial Office by email before submission of the revised paper. Please always include the manuscript number in any correspondence and on any documents. Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editors or returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation (this is in reviewer's discretion if he or she wants to see if his/her comments has been met or let the editorial office validate this). The editors maintain the option to reject a paper in a second or third round of revision, if the specific concerns have not been addressed or if the paper still does not meet a high enough level of priority. The decision to accept to reject a manuscript is based on the editors and reviewers recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief report the final decision to the author.
The APJCP always strive to have a timely review process and shorten the process as much as possible; however, the process may take up to two months.