Reviewer Guidelines

ACEE relies on a community of expert reviewers to uphold the highest standards of scholarly excellence. Reviewers are expected to offer objective, constructive, and timely evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Scope & Review Model

ACEE utilizes a **double‑blind peer review** model: reviewer and author identities remain hidden to each other, ensuring unbiased evaluation of content :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}. Typically, each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}.

Review Responsibilities

  • Assess originality & quality: Verify that the work contributes novel insights and follows rigorous methodology.
  • Evaluate technical merit: Scrutinize data interpretation, methods, and reproducibility standards.
  • Provide constructive feedback: Comments should be professional, respectful, and actionable.
  • Declare conflicts: Disclose any personal, financial, or institutional conflicts and recuse if needed.

Timeline & Communication

Reviewers are expected to deliver evaluations within approximately **15 days**, unless an alternative timeline is agreed upon. If unable to review, decline promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}.

Confidentiality & Ethical Conduct

  • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and related materials as confidential and must not share or use content for any purpose outside the review task.
  • Unpublished data or findings should never be reused without the author's express permission.

Evaluation Structure

Reviews should include:

  • An overall recommendation: accept, revise, or reject.
  • Detailed comments addressing strengths and weaknesses in structure, clarity, methodology, and ethics.
  • A bullet‑list of essential revisions needed to meet journal standards.

Conflict of Interest & Recusal

Reviewers must disclose any relationships with the authors, financial interests, or institutional affiliations that could compromise impartial evaluation. Recusal is mandatory in such cases.

Professionalism & Integrity

Language should remain respectful and technical. Personal remarks should be avoided. Unprofessional behavior may lead to removal from the reviewer database.

Appeals & Editorial Oversight

Authors may appeal if they perceive unfairness. In such cases, reviewers’ comments and editorial decisions may be reassessed by independent board members to ensure fairness and transparency.