Peer Review

ALDiJ subjects all submitted research articles to the highest standards of international peer review:

  • At least two suitably qualified experts review each research article.
  • The journals’ Co-Editor-in-Chiefs makes all publication decisions based on the reviews provided.
  • The Editorial Board Members assist the Co-Editor-in-Chiefs in decision making on specific submissions.
  • The Editorial Board Members lend insight, advice, and guidance to the Co-Editor-in-Chiefs.
  • Administrative support for the review process is provided by the Academic Editors and the Executive Editor. They uphold the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to all stakeholders including authors, reviewers, and editors alike.
  • The journal uses a double-blind peer review process. We do not release referees’ identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
  • ALDiJ subscribes fully to the COPE code of conduct and best practice for journal editors ensuring that our editors are accountable for everything published in our journal. Our readers will always be informed about how the research is funded and our relationships with authors, reviewers and editorial board members will be influenced by COPE recommendations.

Reviewers primarily evaluate the originality, validity and importance of the manuscripts, and provide detailed and evidence-based (with references) comments to help editors to make publication decisions (accept, revise or reject) and authors to make improvements.

Review process considerations

The following points are considered during the review process:

1. Is the manuscript suitable for ALDiJ? Is it original and important?

The topic should be within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the readers. Reviewers also need to judge the originality and importance of the manuscript.

2. Are the results and conclusions well-supported?

Reviewers should highlight if the data are incomplete, insufficient, or if there are errors, because the data may fail to lead to the results and thus the conclusions.

3. Are there any problems regarding statistics?

The statistics reviewer needs to make sure there are no flaws or errors regarding statistical methods and analyses.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers should respect and observe the confidentiality of the manuscript.

Manuscript status

Based on the evaluators' reports, the Editorial Board will assign any of the following statuses to the manuscript:

  • Accepted.
  • Accepted with modifications.
  • New assessment required.
  • Not accepted.

Accepted manuscripts will be published, with no changes required, in the corresponding issue.

If a manuscript is  accepted with modifications, minor changes will be required. The author will be notified of the changes proposed by the evaluators and will have to introduce them within 10 days. Upon receipt of the revised article, an evaluator will check whether the required changes were made. Next, the article will be assessed by the editor.

If a new assessment is required, major changes (drafting, structure, approach, etc.) will be needed. The author will be notified of the changes proposed by the evaluators and will have to introduce them within 30 days. Upon receipt of the revised article, it will be assessed again by two external evaluators.

If the manuscript is rejected, the grounds for rejection will be duly explained to the author.

The decision on the publication of an original will be communicated to the author within a maximum period of 3 months from the receipt of the manuscript by the journal.

linkedin invite