Peer Review Policy

1. Overview and model

APALM uses double-blind external peer review for research articles: reviewers do not know the authors’ identities and authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. All submissions undergo an editorial screening (scope, format, ethics, and text-similarity) before external review. Items such as editorials, corrections, and announcements may be editor-reviewed only and are clearly labelled as such.

2. How many reviewers?

Unless otherwise noted, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited where methods or statistics require it.

3. Editorial screening (desk assessment)

On receipt, a handling editor checks:

  • Fit to scope and reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT/PRISMA/STROBE/CARE/ARRIVE as applicable).

  • Ethics and consent (IRB/IEC/IAEC approvals, participant/ publication consent).

  • Text similarity using a plagiarism-detection service. Similarity scores are interpreted by editors; matches do not automatically imply misconduct.
    Submissions may be desk-rejected at this stage with constructive reasons.

4. Selecting reviewers

Editors select reviewers based on subject expertise, recent scholarship, and absence of conflicts of interest. Author-recommended reviewers may be considered at the editor’s discretion; non-preferred/opposed reviewers may be excluded where reasonable. Reviewers must declare competing interests (financial and non-financial) and decline assignments where conflicts exist.

5. What reviewers are asked to assess

  • Originality and importance of the work

  • Methodological and statistical rigor; reproducibility

  • Ethics, consent, and data availability statements

  • Appropriate, current references and prior art

  • Clear, transparent reporting and conclusions supported by data

6. Confidentiality and integrity

Manuscripts and review materials are confidential. Reviewers must not share, cite, or use information from the submission without permission. AI tools must not be used to process non-public manuscripts; reviewers remain responsible for all content they submit.

7. Decisions and revisions

Editors make decisions based on reviewer reports and their own assessment. Typical outcomes are: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, decline, or resubmit elsewhere (out of scope). Revised manuscripts may be returned to the same reviewers or to additional reviewers at the editor’s discretion.

8. Timelines and communication

Our target median time from submission → first decision is aligned with a typical 10–12 weeks full review cycle, varying by specialty and reviewer availability. We aim to provide reviewer comments to authors promptly after receipt. We will inform authors of delays and provide the option to withdraw if timelines become unsuitable.

9. Appeals and complaints

Authors may appeal a reject decision by writing to the Editorial Office within 30 days, providing a clear, evidence-based rationale. Appeals are evaluated by a senior editor not involved in the original decision (or the Editor-in-Chief), and may result in: uphold decision; invite revision; or seek additional external review. Complaints about editorial conduct, peer review, or ethics are handled independently of the original editor; unresolved cases may be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief.

10. Research integrity and misconduct

Suspected issues (plagiarism, duplicate submission, image/data manipulation, undisclosed COI, ethical non-compliance) are investigated in line with international guidelines and the journal’s Publication Ethics and Article Withdrawal/Retraction policies. Authors may be asked to provide raw data, images, or approvals during assessment.

11. Special issues and editor-authored submissions

Special issues follow the same peer-review standards. For manuscripts handled by guest editors or submitted by APALM editors/board members, the Editor-in-Chief assigns an independent handling editor; the submitting editor is recused from the process. We aim to minimize endogeny and ensure decisions are independent of author or institutional affiliation.

12. Anonymity and author responsibilities

To support double-blind review, authors must:

  • Remove identifying details from the manuscript file(s) and metadata.

  • Cite their own work in the third person where feasible.

  • Where preprints exist, acknowledge that perfect blinding cannot be guaranteed; reviewers who recognize authors should declare this to the editor.

13. Transparency on article pages

If a published article followed a process different from the standard policy (e.g., invited editorial, rapid communication with limited review), the article page will state the review type applied.

Cross-links: [Publication Ethics & Malpractice] • [Conflict of Interest Policy] • [Research Data Availability & Sharing] • [Article Withdrawal/Retraction] • [Author Guidelines] • [Repository & Self-Archiving]