PEER REVIEW POLICYAPST recognises the value and importance of the peer reviewer in the overall publication process – not only in shaping the individual manuscript, but also in shaping the credibility and reputation of our journals. We are committed to the timely publication of all original, innovative contributions submitted for publication. As such, the identi?cation and selection of reviewers who have expertise and interest in the topics appropriate to each manuscript are essential elements in ensuring a timely, productive peer-review process. If you would like to become a reviewer, please visit the relevant journal website and register as a reviewer.Please note: Peer reviewers are asked to make every reasonable effort to ensure the following criteria are taken into account for the submitted manuscripts they have agreed to peer review:
All manuscripts submitted for review will undergo a double-blind review process in order to maintain confidentiality.
Unbiased consideration should be given to each manuscript, judging each on its merits without regard to the race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority or institutional affiliation of the author.
Manuscripts should be dealt with and processed according to the timeframes set out by AOSIS OpenJournals.
The quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical work, its interpretations, and its exposition should be judged objectively.
Potential conflicts of interest must be declared to the journal editor before undertaking any peer review. If any conflicts do exist, the reviewer should decline the review request.
All of the reviewers¸ judgements must be explained and supported. Any statement that an observation, derivation or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by the relevant citation.
While the content of a manuscript may justify criticism, even severe criticism, under no circumstances is personal or malicious criticism of the author appropriate or acceptable.
Reviewers may be asked to re-appraise a manuscript that was referred back to the authors after a first-round review.
In cases where reviewers provide substantively different ratings, a manuscript will be sent to an arbitrator for a final verdict.
Reviewers should always respect the confidentiality of the review process and the proprietary rights of those who have submitted manuscripts.
Reviewers may decline the request to review the work of others if they believe the process may be biased or if they have questions about the authenticity or integrity of the reported research.
If you would like to become a reviewer, please visit the following link (click here) for an instructional video on how to conduct a review online through the OJS software. This will serve as guideline on how to complete your review online. Following the review, the editor will evaluate the review reports and make a final decision. The outcome will be categorised as one of the following:
Acceptable as is (apart from editorial changes)
Acceptable, but requires minor revision (to the satisfaction of the editor)
Requires major revision and reconsideration (Requires re-review)
Reject, not acceptable for publication in the journal.