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. Typically, each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts.

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.

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  • Unpublished data or findings should never be reused without the author's express permission.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.