Peer Review Policy

Archives of Community Medicine and Public Health (ACMPH) upholds the highest standards of peer review integrity to ensure the publication of high-quality, credible, and impactful research. The journal follows a double-blind peer review process to maintain fairness, transparency, and impartiality in manuscript evaluation.

Types of Peer Review

ACMPH employs the double-blind peer review model, where:

  • Author identities remain anonymous to the reviewers.
  • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors.

This ensures an objective assessment of the manuscript without bias based on affiliation, nationality, gender, or academic position.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process at ACMPH follows these steps:

  1. Initial Submission Check: The editorial team performs a preliminary assessment to ensure the manuscript meets journal scope and formatting guidelines.
  2. Plagiarism Screening: All submissions are screened using iThenticate to detect any potential plagiarism.
  3. Editor Assignment: The manuscript is assigned to an editor with expertise in the relevant field.
  4. Reviewer Selection: The editor selects two or more independent reviewers with expertise in the subject matter.
  5. Double-Blind Peer Review: The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide feedback on originality, methodology, clarity, and scientific contribution.
  6. Review Decision: Based on reviewer comments, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
    • Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revisions.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor improvements.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript needs substantial modifications and re-evaluation.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards.
  7. Author Revision: Authors submit a revised manuscript addressing reviewer comments.
  8. Final Decision: The editor makes a final decision after reviewing the revised manuscript.
  9. Publication: Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and online publication.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining scientific excellence. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
  • Maintain confidentiality and not disclose manuscript details to others.
  • Identify potential ethical concerns such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submissions.
  • Report conflicts of interest if their relationship with the authors may affect judgment.
  • Complete reviews on time to ensure timely publication.

Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting to ACMPH must:

  • Ensure originality and properly cite all sources.
  • Address reviewer comments within the given timeframe.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest that could influence the research.
  • Follow ethical guidelines for human and animal research.

Editorial Responsibilities

The editorial team is responsible for:

  • Ensuring fair and unbiased peer review.
  • Protecting author and reviewer confidentiality.
  • Handling ethical concerns and potential conflicts of interest.
  • Making final publication decisions based on reviewer recommendations.

Appeals and Disputes

If an author disagrees with a peer review decision, they may submit an appeal to the editorial office, providing:

  • A detailed response addressing reviewer concerns.
  • Supporting evidence for reconsideration.

Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board, and the decision is final.

Peer Review Timelines

ACMPH strives to ensure an efficient review process:

  • Initial screening: 3-5 days
  • Peer review process: 4-6 weeks
  • Revisions and resubmission: 2-4 weeks
  • Final decision: 1-2 weeks

Contact for Peer Review Inquiries

For inquiries regarding the peer review process, please contact:

Email: [email protected]

Ensuring Rigorous and Transparent Peer Review!