Editorial Process
Pre-Check Peer Review Open Peer Review Revision Editor Decision Author Appeals
Production Publication Ethics Publishing Standards and Guidelines
Editorial Independence
AUCTORES follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process conducted by qualified researchers and scholars, ensuring the highest standards of academic quality. We are committed to making peer review efficient, fair, and thorough for all participants. For most AUCTORES journals, peer review is conducted as a single-blind process, involving at least two independent reviewers. Following the review, the Editor-in-Chief—or an Academic Editor appointed by the Editor-in-Chief—makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the academic integrity of the publication process, approves external editors, selects topics for article collections such as Special Issues, Topics, and Topical Collections, and appoints new Editorial Board Members. A summary of the editorial workflow is illustrated in the flowchart below.
Pre-Check
The pre-screening stage involves two key steps: a technical pre-check conducted by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check performed by an Academic Editor.
Technical Pre-Check
Immediately after submission, the journal’s Managing Editor carries out a technical pre-check to
evaluate:
• The overall suitability of the manuscript for the journal, section, Special Issue, Topic, or Topical Collection;
• Compliance with high research and ethical standards;
• The scientific rigor of the manuscript to determine eligibility for peer review.
Editorial Pre-Check
Once the technical pre-check is complete, an Academic Editor—such as the Editor-in-Chief for
regular submissions, the Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, the Topic Editor for Topic submissions, the Collection Editor for Topical Collection submissions, or an Editorial Board Member in cases of conflict of interest—reviews the manuscript. During this phase, the Academic Editor assesses:
• Alignment with the journal’s scope;
• Overall scientific soundness, including the relevance of references and accuracy of methodology. Based on this assessment, the Academic Editor may:
• Reject the manuscript;
• Request revisions before peer review;
• Proceed with peer review and recommend appropriate reviewers.
Conflict of Interest Policy
Guest Editors, Topic Editors, and Collection Editors cannot make editorial decisions on their own submissions to prevent conflicts of interest. In such cases, an Editorial Board Member handles the decision-making. Likewise, Editors-in-Chief or other Academic Editors cannot participate in the review process of their own manuscripts except as authors.
Peer Review
From submission to final decision or publication, a dedicated AUCTORES staff member coordinates the entire peer review process and serves as the primary point of contact for authors, Academic Editors, and reviewers.
Peer Review Models
Most AUCTORES journals use a single-blind peer review, where reviewers know the authors’ identities but authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. Some journals operate double-blind peer review, where neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. Conference journals follow different peer review standards, managed by the conference committee, with the number of reports and review method determined by the conference organizers (link).
Review Process
Each manuscript undergoes at least two independent reviews. During the pre-check stage, the Academic Editor may suggest reviewers, or AUCTORES staff will identify qualified reviewers from Editorial Board Members, our database, or relevant publications. Authors can also recommend potential reviewers and may specify reviewers to be excluded due to conflicts of interest; the Editorial Team respects these requests as long as they do not compromise the objectivity and thoroughness of the review. For journals with a reviewer board, registered reviewers may apply to review a manuscript if the authors agree to this option during submission.
Reviewer Criteria All reviewers are carefully selected based on the following standards:
• No conflicts of interest with the authors;
• Not affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
• No co-publications with the authors in the past three years;
• Possess a PhD or equivalent;
• Demonstrated expertise and publication record in the relevant field (verified via Scopus or ORCID);
• Official and recognized academic affiliation. Reviewer Responsibilities Accepted reviewers are expected to:
• Evaluate manuscripts with expertise and rigor;
• Provide detailed, high-quality reports and remain responsive throughout the review;
• Uphold the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct. Reviewers typically have 7–10 days to submit their report through the online platform, SuSy, with extensions granted upon request. For revised manuscripts, reviewers are asked to provide feedback within three days, with extensions available as needed.
Editorial Support
AUCTORES staff manage all communications with reviewers, authors, and Academic Editors. Editors can monitor manuscript status, review progress, and the identities of reviewers at any time, and may discuss review outcomes with staff to support informed decision-making.
Open Peer Review
AUCTORES journals offer authors the option of Open Peer Review. Selecting this option means that the peer review reports and the authors’ responses will be published alongside the article. This approach provides greater transparency, allowing readers to see and assess the peer review process. Open Peer Review also encourages reviewers to provide thorough, high-quality feedback, as their comments may be made publicly available if the article is accepted. To support open communication and strengthen the review process, reviewers are encouraged to sign their reports (open identity), allowing their names to appear on the published review. This enables reviewers to receive recognition for their contributions and demonstrates their commitment to open science. By default, reviewers remain anonymous, and no peer review details are published for rejected articles. Since the launch of Open Peer Review in 2014, AUCTORES authors have increasingly embraced this model, resulting in a growing number of published review reports. Additional information is available on the AUCTORES blog.
Revision
When a manuscript receives a recommendation for minor or major revision, AUCTORES staff will request that the author revise the paper before it is referred back to the Academic Editor. In cases of conflicting review reports, or if one or more reviewers recommend rejection, the Academic Editor’s input is sought prior to communicating any revision decision to the authors. At this stage, Academic Editors may also request additional reviewers or further review reports if necessary. Revised manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the updated version. By default, reviewers who suggested major revisions or recommended rejection will receive the revised manuscript. All reviewers can access the latest manuscript version via SuSy. Typically, a maximum of two rounds of major revision are allowed per manuscript. If additional revisions are deemed necessary, AUCTORES staff will consult the Academic Editor for a decision. For manuscripts requiring extensive changes and marked as “Reject and Encourage Resubmission,” authors may resubmit their revised manuscript to the same journal at their convenience. Resubmissions are assigned a new manuscript ID while remaining linked to the original submission in SuSy. The editorial process then continues as usual, with the original reviewers generally invited to evaluate the resubmitted manuscript to ensure continuity in peer review. If the journal’s editorial office is unable to maintain communication with the author during the review or production process, the manuscript may be withdrawn after a designated period of inactivity.
Editor Decision
Decisions to accept manuscripts are made by an Academic Editor after peer review, once at least two review reports have been received. The Academic Editor may be the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor, Topic Editor, Collection Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board Member. Guest, Topic, or Collection Editors cannot make decisions on their own submissions; these are assigned to an independent Editorial Board Member. When making a decision, the Academic Editor evaluates:
• The suitability of the selected reviewers;
• The quality and adequacy of the reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses;
• The overall scientific rigor and quality of the manuscript.
Decision options include: accept as is, accept with minor revision, request revision, ask for an additional reviewer, reject but encourage resubmission, or reject and decline resubmission. Any potential conflicts of interest must be reported to the Editorial Office. Details on conflicts of interest for Academic Editors can be found here. Academic Editors must avoid recommending unnecessary citations, such as self-citations, citations of close colleagues, or articles from the same journal, unless they improve the manuscript. Citation manipulation is considered misconduct under COPE guidelines. Reviewers provide recommendations, but the Academic Editor or Editor-in-Chief may override them, providing justification to maintain transparency. In cases where an Academic Editor supports acceptance despite a reviewer recommending rejection, AUCTORES staff will seek a second independent opinion (“double decision”) from an Editorial Board Member or the Editor- in-Chief. The outcome of the double decision is final. All manuscripts are accepted for publication solely by an Academic Editor. AUCTORES staff inform authors but do not make acceptance decisions. Editorial Board Members, including Editors-in-Chief, are not involved in the handling of their own manuscripts; decisions are made by independent editors, and at least two external reviewers evaluate each submission. AUCTORES adheres to the 2012 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), focusing on scientific accuracy rather than artificially increasing rejection rates.
Author Appeals
Authors may appeal a rejection (“reject and decline resubmission”) within three months of the decision date by submitting a detailed, point-by-point response via the journal’s appeal form. The Managing Editor forwards the appeal to a designated Editorial Board Member, who provides an advisory recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief validates the final decision. Rejection at this stage is final.
Production
AUCTORES handles manuscript production in-house, including professional language editing, copyediting, and XML conversion. For extensive editing, optional English editing services are available for a fee, subject to author approval. Authors may also use external editing services or consult native English-speaking colleagues.
Publication Ethics
AUCTORES is a member of COPE and follows its Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Editorial staff are trained to detect and handle ethical issues, including disputes over authorship, data ownership, or misconduct. Readers’ concerns are investigated per COPE guidelines, and external bodies may be consulted if necessary. Authorship changes require institutional confirmation if all authors do not agree.
Publishing Standards and Guidelines
AUCTORES journals adhere to recognized reporting standards and guidelines, including:
• ICMJE: For medical journals, covering editorial processes, peer review, and complaints handling.
• CONSORT: For randomized controlled trials.
• TOP Guidelines: Transparency and openness in research reporting (level 1 or 2).
• FAIR Principles: Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reuse of data.
• PRISMA: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• ARRIVE: Reporting in vivo experiments. Manuscripts are screened using iThenticate for plagiarism and Proofig AI for image integrity. Compliance with these standards is considered during final decisions, and authors are encouraged to highlight relevant guidelines in their cover letter.
Editorial Independence
All articles undergo independent peer review by Editorial Boards. AUCTORES staff do not influence acceptance decisions. Academic Editors make decisions based solely on:
• Reviewer suitability;
• Review quality and author responses;
• Overall scientific merit. AUCTORES prioritizes open and rapid access to scientific research while maintaining rigorous editorial standards.