All manuscripts submitted to ASPG journals undergo a structured and rigorous peer-review process designed to support the quality, originality, integrity, and scholarly relevance of published research.
The peer-review process is conducted independently of commercial considerations and in accordance with the publisher's standards of publication ethics and editorial integrity.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript is evaluated by the editorial office to determine its relevance to the journal's aims and scope and its compliance with basic submission requirements.
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, clarity, and suitability for external peer review.
Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, do not meet appropriate scholarly standards, or do not comply with essential submission requirements may be declined at this stage without external peer review.
Submitted manuscripts may also be screened using recognized similarity-detection tools as part of the editorial assessment.
Requirements concerning originality, research integrity, publication misconduct, authorship, conflicts of interest, and related ethical matters are provided in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
2. External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two qualified independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
ASPG journals apply a single-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise and ability to provide an independent scholarly assessment of the submitted work.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to relevant scholarly criteria, including:
Originality and significance of the work;
Methodological, theoretical, or analytical soundness;
Quality and clarity of presentation;
Validity and interpretation of the findings;
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope; and
Overall contribution to the relevant field of research.
Additional reviewers may be invited where specialist expertise, further clarification, or an additional independent assessment is required.
3. Confidentiality and Objectivity
All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal, professional, commercial, or other purposes.
Reviews should be objective, constructive, professionally expressed, and supported by appropriate scholarly reasoning.
Personal criticism of authors or comments unrelated to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript are not acceptable.
Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the review process and for ensuring that reviewer comments are considered appropriately when making editorial decisions.
4. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could reasonably affect, or be perceived as affecting, their impartiality.
A reviewer or editor should not participate in the evaluation of a manuscript where a significant financial, professional, institutional, personal, collaborative, or other relationship may compromise independent judgment.
Where a conflict is identified, another suitably qualified reviewer or editor should be assigned where appropriate.
Further requirements concerning conflicts of interest and publication ethics are provided in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
5. Use of Generative AI in Peer Review
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and associated review materials assigned to them.
Manuscripts under review, together with associated files, data, figures, tables, supplementary material, or editorial correspondence, must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI tools or other AI-assisted systems where confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or author rights could be compromised.
Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to process confidential manuscript content or to generate review reports based on such content.
Peer-review reports must represent the reviewer's own scholarly expertise, critical assessment, and professional judgment.
Any breach of confidentiality or inappropriate use of manuscript material may result in rejection of the review, removal of the reviewer from the journal's reviewer pool, or other appropriate editorial action.
Additional requirements concerning artificial intelligence and publication integrity are provided in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
6. Editorial Decision
Following consideration of the reports provided by at least two independent reviewers and the editor's own assessment of the manuscript, an editorial decision is made.
Possible decisions normally include:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
Reviewer recommendations contribute significantly to the editorial assessment but do not automatically determine the final decision.
The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor remains responsible for the final editorial decision and may request additional reviews where further specialist evaluation or clarification is necessary.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, research integrity, and the journal's editorial criteria.
Publication charges, the author's ability to pay, institutional affiliation, or other commercial considerations do not influence peer-review outcomes or editorial decisions.
7. Revision Process
Where revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe communicated by the journal.
Authors are expected to consider the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and to provide a clear response explaining how the comments have been addressed.
Where an author does not agree with a particular recommendation, an appropriate scholarly explanation may be provided.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, particularly following major revision. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the editor where appropriate.
Additional review rounds may be conducted when necessary to determine whether the manuscript adequately addresses the scholarly or technical issues identified during evaluation.
8. Final Decision and Acceptance
Following completion of peer review and any required revisions, the responsible editor makes the final decision concerning acceptance or rejection.
A manuscript is accepted only when the editor is satisfied that the scholarly and editorial concerns raised during evaluation have been appropriately addressed.
Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to editorial processing and production according to the publication requirements of the journal.
Acceptance does not prevent the journal or publisher from taking appropriate action if significant ethical, legal, or research-integrity concerns are subsequently identified.
Post-publication issues are handled in accordance with the Corrections and Retractions Policy.
9. Editorial Independence
ASPG is committed to protecting the independence of editorial and peer-review decisions.
Editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly, ethical, and journal-related criteria.
Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:
Article Processing Charges or other publication fees;
Commercial relationships;
Advertising or sponsorship;
Institutional or organizational interests; or
Personal considerations unrelated to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript.
The publisher supports the authority of Editors-in-Chief and designated editors to make independent editorial decisions in accordance with the journal's policies and standards.
10. Transparency and Timeliness
ASPG seeks to maintain a fair, transparent, independent, and timely peer-review process.
The duration of peer review may vary according to factors such as:
The subject and complexity of the manuscript;
Availability of appropriately qualified independent reviewers;
The extent of revisions required; and
The need for additional specialist assessment.
The editorial office seeks to minimize unnecessary delays and maintain appropriate communication with authors throughout the editorial process.
ASPG does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or a fixed peer-review timeframe.
11. Reviewer Selection and Independence
Reviewers are selected according to their relevant scholarly expertise and ability to provide an independent assessment of the manuscript.
Editors should avoid selecting reviewers where circumstances may reasonably raise concerns regarding independence or impartiality.
Reviewer suggestions provided by authors, where permitted, may be considered by the editor, but the journal is under no obligation to use suggested reviewers. The final selection of reviewers remains entirely with the editorial team.
The identity and suitability of reviewers may be verified where necessary to protect the integrity of the peer-review process.
Any evidence of fabricated reviewer identities, manipulated peer review, inappropriate influence, or interference with the review process will be handled as a publication-integrity concern under the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
12. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision or raise concerns regarding the conduct of the peer-review or editorial process may contact the journal's editorial office.
Appeals should provide a clear scholarly explanation of the grounds for reconsideration and should identify the specific editorial or review issues being challenged.
Appeals and complaints are assessed objectively and are handled according to the publisher's Appeals and Complaints Policy.
Concerns involving plagiarism, research misconduct, authorship misconduct, data or image integrity, peer-review manipulation, or other significant publication-integrity matters are handled in accordance with the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
13. General Conditions
Manuscripts submitted to ASPG journals should:
Be written in clear and professional English;
Represent original scholarly work;
Not be simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
Disclose relevant prior dissemination or publication where applicable; and
Comply with the applicable journal and publisher policies.
Detailed manuscript-preparation and submission requirements are provided in the Author Guidelines.
Authors are also encouraged to review the Before You Submit page before completing a submission.
14. Copyright, Licensing, and Open Access
Copyright, licensing, author rights, and reuse of published articles are governed by the ASPG Copyright and Licensing Policy.
Information concerning immediate open access, Creative Commons licensing, author self-archiving, and accessibility is available in the Open Access Policy.
These considerations are separate from the peer-review process and do not influence editorial decisions.