Peer Review Process

Archives of Community Medicine and Public Health (ACMPH) follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality and ethically sound research. The peer review system is designed to evaluate the originality, validity, and significance of submitted manuscripts through an objective and fair assessment by experts in the field.

Peer Review Model

ACMPH employs a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Manuscripts are evaluated purely on academic merit.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscript through the journal's online submission system. All submissions must comply with the journal's Author Guidelines.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor performs an initial assessment to determine:

  • Scope and Relevance: Whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Basic Formatting Compliance: If the submission meets formatting and referencing requirements.
  • Plagiarism Screening: The manuscript is checked for plagiarism using iThenticate. Manuscripts with high similarity scores may be rejected.
  • Scientific Merit: If the paper lacks novelty or scientific rigor, it may be rejected without further review.

3. Assignment to Reviewers

If the manuscript passes initial screening, it is assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers based on their subject expertise.

  • Reviewers are selected for their expertise in the manuscript’s topic.
  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the review.
  • Reviewers are given 2-4 weeks to complete their evaluation.

4. Peer Review and Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: Does the manuscript present novel research?
  • Scientific Rigor: Is the methodology sound and appropriate?
  • Data Accuracy: Are the results valid and reliable?
  • Clarity and Organization: Is the paper well-structured and clearly written?
  • Ethical Compliance: Has the study followed ethical guidelines?

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small modifications before acceptance.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript needs substantial changes before reconsideration.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet publication standards.

5. Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewer comments and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication.
  • Revise and Resubmit: Authors are required to revise their manuscript based on reviewer feedback.
  • Reject: If the manuscript does not meet the required standards, it is declined.

6. Author Revision and Re-evaluation

If revisions are required:

  • Authors receive detailed reviewer comments and a deadline for resubmission.
  • Revised manuscripts are either accepted, sent for further review, or rejected based on the quality of revisions.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to:

  • Copyediting and Proofreading: Authors review the final proof before publication.
  • DOI Assignment: Each article is assigned a DOI via CrossRef.
  • Online Publication: The article is published under an Open Access (CC BY 4.0) license.

Ethical Standards in Peer Review

The peer review process adheres to the ethical guidelines established by:

Ensuring a Rigorous and Transparent Peer Review Process!