Search for Author, Title, Keyword

For Reviewers


Peer Review

ACIG operates a double-blind peer review process that is developed according to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Initial Checks

All submitted manuscripts received by the Editorial Team will be initially checked by Editors before the manuscripts are sent for peer review. The manuscript can be rejected without peer review if:
  • the manuscript does not meet the ACIG ethical policy,
  • the manuscript does not fit the aims and scope of ACIG,
  • the manuscript has no new science,
  • the manuscript lacks up-to-date references,
  • the manuscript has a poor study design,
  • the manuscript fails the technical screening,
  • the standard of writing is low.

Manuscripts that are not adequately prepared may be returned to the Authors for minor or even major revisions and resubmission within two weeks after the submission. After the initial check, the Editor will send the qualified manuscripts for peer review.

Peer Review

After an initial check, all manuscripts considered for publication in ACIG, including invited papers, go through a stringent and thorough double-blind peer review procedure. This is a requirement to maintain confidentiality and integrity throughout the peer review and editorial decision-making process at all stages in compliance with data protection regulations (including GDPR).

The invited reviewers should declare any competing interests before submitting their report to the journal. The peer review process will involve the participation of at least two independent experts. During the submission process, the Authors may suggest potential reviewers with sufficient expertise to review the manuscript. Authors should not recommend reviewers with whom they have a competing interest, for example, a close collaborator or colleague. However, it is at the discretion of the Editors to consider these referees or not.

For further guidance on avoiding potential conflicts of interest during the peer review process, see the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

The final decision regarding acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  • Reviewers should avoid any potential competing interest (i.e. financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships between the authors and reviewers) and should report any such conflicts to the Editors, if necessary ceasing their work on the manuscript;
  • Reviewers are requested to notify the Editors should they become aware of any scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or other unethical behavior related to the manuscript;
  • Reviewers are expected to carry out an appropriate evaluation of the manuscript, which includes an analysis of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, suggestions on how to make it more complete, relevant, and readable, as well as specific questions for the Authors to address. At the same time, Reviewers should respect the intellectual independence of Authors;
  • Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and in a timely manner;
  • Reviewers should treat the manuscript as confidential and it should be destroyed after the review. Reviewers must not copy the manuscript or use or disseminate unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained therein without express permission to do so.

Editorial Decisions

All original articles, reviews, and other types of papers published in ACIG go through the peer review process. The decision regarding publication is based on a minimum of two peer review comments and may take one of four forms.

The paper is in principle accepted based on the reviewers’ comments. The decision to publish is not based solely on the scientific validity of an article’s content but may also take into account such considerations as its extent and importance.

Minor revision. The paper is to be accepted after it has undergone minor revisions specified in the reviewers’ comments. Authors should complete the minor revisions along with point-by-point responses to the comments or provide a rebuttal letter.

Major revision. The paper may be accepted provided that it is thoroughly revised. In this case as well, the authors must provide a point-by-point response or rebuttal to the comments, and the revised version is sent to the same reviewer for further comment.

The manuscript may be rejected if it fails to meet the following criteria: (1) high quality; (2) high scientific interest; (3) important contribution to the literature.

Articles may be rejected even after revision when they are found to have serious flaws and/or to make no substantial original contribution to the scholarship.

The final decision about publishing the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

In the cases in which revisions are called for, Authors are expected to:
  • address all points raised by the Reviewers,
  • describe the revisions to the manuscripts in a response letter,
  • provide a polite and scientific rebuttal to any points or comments they disagree with,
  • clearly show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text, by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word’s track changes feature,
  • return the revised manuscript and response letter in the allotted time period.

Online First

The articles that have been accepted and are ready for publication in ACIG are published Online First, prior to the assignment to one issue. All articles published Online First are proofread by a native speaker chosen for cooperation by ACIG. Next, the manuscripts are proofed by the Authors before being published. Online First articles can be cited by the article’s Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Every article is assigned a unique DOI which is the permanent identifier of all versions of that article.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top