Peer Review Process
This section provides a brief overview of the peer review process at AME Clinical Trials Review (ACTR)
1. Review criteria
Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:
- the material is original and timely;
- the manuscript is written clearly and in accordance with the guidelines for authors;
- the information contained in the manuscript is important, topical, and relevant to clinical trials;
- the manuscript should be focused and brief, and defenses arguments logically;
- the conclusions are reasonable and well supported by evidence.
2. Peer review mode
ACTR uses double-blind peer review, which means the identity of the peer reviewer is kept confidential, and the author’s identity is also unknown to the reviewer.
Normally, every manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers. However, sometimes the opinions of more reviewers are sought. Peer reviewers are selected based on their expertise and ability to provide high quality, constructive, and fair reviews.
The existence of a manuscript under review should not be revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality in relation to the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal’s editors.
Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed to help improve the quality of the editorial or peer-review processes. Identifying information remains confidential. Final decisions regarding the publication of manuscripts are made by the Editorial Office.
3. Provenance and peer review
ACTR is committed to transparency. For articles that are commissioned, undergo rapid communication pathway (fast-track peer process) or published without external peer review, there will be a “Provenance and Peer Review” statement in the footnote of the article, indicating whether it is commissioned or not and how the review was organized (e.g., with or without external peer review).
The Rapid Communication Pathway may be open for articles that are of exceptional clinical importance and urgency, of a public policy reason for urgent publication, or with previous peer review comments and revisions after rejection from another esteemed journal.
4. Transparent peer review
With a commitment to openness and accountability, and to increase the level of transparency throughout our peer review process, ACTR has fully implement a transparent peer review process for all submission.
For more detailed information, please refer to: https://actr.amegroups.org/announcement/view/214.
5. Online review system
To ensure the most convenient and efficient peer review process possible, our peer reviews are conducted electronically via the OJS system, which can be accessed through the journal’s website (https://actr.amegroups.org/login).
6. Recognition for Reviewers
ACTR’s publisher, AME, entered into an official partnership with Publons on April 2020. The partnership enables the contributions of our expert peer reviewers to be easily recognized. ACTR’s peer review system is now integrated seamlessly into the Publons platform. As part of the review submission process, reviewers of ACTR can now opt-in to Publons, and the review data can be transferred to Publons upon submission. For more information, please refer to: https://actr.amegroups.org/announcement/view/229.
7. Peer review flowchart
- 1) Handling Editors pass the submitted manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief.
- 2) The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary review and passes the article of interest to an Associate Editor with related expertise depending on the topic of the submitted manuscript.
- 3) The assigned Associate Editor reviews the manuscript and recommends external reviewers to the Editorial Office. A literature search may be conducted to identify appropriate external reviewers.
- 4) External reviewers review the manuscript.
- 5) The external reviewers make recommendations. The Editorial Office will seek advice from the International Advisory Board members when there are not enough external review comments.
- 6) The recommendations are sent to the Editor-in-Chief, along with a review from the assigned Associate Editor and advice from the International Advisory Board when applicable.
- 7) The Editor-in-Chief makes a decision on the manuscript, for which there are four options: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
8. Peer review for papers submitted by the journal’s editorial team member or International Advisory Board member
Editorials and commentaries written by the journal's own editors do not undergo external peer review.
To assure impartial decision-making and to avoid any potential conflicts of interest, authors with a position in the journal’s editorial team or International Advisory Board will be excluded from any editorial handling of their manuscript (including reviewing, editing, and the final decision). Besides, editors are not involved in decisions about papers which have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups. For example, articles from the Editor-in-Chief will be assigned to an Associate Editor with related expertise. After the review comments have been received from external reviewers, the manuscript will be returned to the Associate Editor to make a final decision.
For submission from authors with a position in the journal’s editorial team or International Advisory Board, if accepted, declaration of the author’s relation with the journal will be included in the footnote of the manuscript.
9. Submission turnaround time
- In-house review: 1 week
- External peer review: 1-3 months
- Publication ahead of print: within 1 month after being accepted
- Formal publication: within 1-3 months after being accepted
Updated on August 23, 2024