Peer Review Policy

Review model: JACR uses double-anonymous peer review. Every scholarly manuscript sent for external review is evaluated by a minimum of three independent reviewers.

Editorial screening

The editorial office checks scope, completeness, originality, ethical documentation, reporting quality, conflicts of interest, and basic methodological suitability. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned or declined before external review.

Reviewer selection and independence

Editors select reviewers for relevant expertise, independence, availability, and absence of disqualifying conflicts. Reviewers should not have a recent close collaboration, supervisory relationship, institutional conflict, financial interest, or personal relationship that could compromise objectivity. Authors may suggest or oppose reviewers, but the editor retains full discretion.

Review and decision

  1. At least three independent review reports are sought for each externally reviewed scholarly manuscript.
  2. Reviewers assess originality, methods, analysis, interpretation, ethics, reporting, data transparency, and relevance.
  3. The editor considers the reports and the manuscript record; decisions are not determined by a vote.
  4. Possible decisions are accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or decline.
  5. Revised manuscripts should include a point-by-point response. Further review may be requested.

Timeliness

Initial screening is normally completed within 7–14 days. Reviewers are ordinarily asked to return reports within 2–4 weeks. Complex revisions or difficulty securing appropriate experts may extend the process; authors receive updates through OJS.

Special cases

Submissions by editors, board members, reviewers, or guest editors are assigned to an independent editor without the contributor's access to reviewer selection or the decision. Special-issue manuscripts follow the same standards. Case reports are additionally assessed for written consent for publication, anonymisation, clinical relevance, and CARE reporting.

Confidentiality and AI

Manuscripts and review reports are confidential. Reviewers must not share or use unpublished material and must not upload manuscripts to generative-AI or other external services. Suspected misconduct or undisclosed conflicts should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal that identifies a material error in the review or decision. Appeals are handled by an editor not materially involved in the original decision when feasible. See Complaints and Appeals.