For reviewers

Expert reviewers provide valuable guidance for evaluating scientific research within the academic community, playing an essential role in the advancement of scientific knowledge in their field. The process of reviewing academic articles is time-consuming and demands a specialized and objective scientific perspective. If you decide to become a reviewer for a particular manuscript, it is crucial to read the peer review policy of each journal thoroughly and consider the following questions:


1. Will you approach the scientific research of your peers with fairness and objectivity?

2. Is there a potential conflict of interest? Please refer to the Conflict of Interest in the journal’s policy.

3. Are you familiar with all of the journal’s policies and guidelines, especially focus and scope?


How to become a reviewer?

If you would like to become a reviewer for an APACSCI journal, please send your CV to the Editorial Office. The Editorial Team will choose reviewers based on their field of expertise, current scientific research, and other relevant experience. To be eligible for consideration, candidates must meet the following requirements:


1. Hold a doctoral degree or an equivalent qualification in the same field at the doctoral level or above.

2. Be currently active in the academic community.

3. Have published at least one peer-reviewed article in the field in a journal indexed by Web of Science (WoS).


Qualified candidates will be given an account registered by the Editorial Office. If you have been invited to review an article for a journal, please access the OJS system with the account to review the manuscript. Once you have completed the review, you can ask the Editorial Office for a reviewer’s certificate. If your review is accepted and recognized by the journal, you will be eligible for a discount on the article processing charges. Please contact the Editorial Office for more information. Additionally, at the end of each year, we will recognize and highlight the contributions of our exceptional reviewers.


Reviewing procedure

The suggestions made by reviewers play a crucial role in deciding whether an article will be accepted or not. Reviewers are expected to be fair, objective, and scientific in their assessment. Reviewers must follow the publishing ethics of the Journal. If a reviewer has a possible conflict of interest with the author of the article, editor, or other parties, they should inform us truthfully. In such a case, the reviewer will not be considered for reviewing the article, and we welcome your recommendations for other scholars who can review it. We will send review invitations to them based on your suggestions. However, we will not consider any experts on the list of recused reviewers provided by authors. If there is any suspicious misconduct in the work, reviewers should report to the Editor-in-Chief, the Journal will launch an immediate investigation by a group of investigation members. Decisions will be made by the investigation group based on clear evidence, and the authors will be informed. If there is any appeal against the decision, it must be made to the publisher within 14 days of the decision date, or else actions will be taken after 14 days. The decision on the appeal is final.


APACSCI journals use a dual anonymous peer review model, where authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The review report and reviewer information are confidential documents, and the anonymity applies before and after the review. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from discussing the reviewed article with their peers.


How to write a review?

Please keep in mind the following information:


To know more about the focus and scope of the target journal, please refer to the corresponding section. We kindly ask you to submit your report before the review deadline (it usually takes 2 weeks from accepting the review request to submitting the report). If you cannot complete it by then, please notify the editor in advance.


When writing your review report, please consider the following:

1. Checking whether the article topic fits the scope of the journal.

2. Evaluating the novelty of the research topic.

3. Verifying if the title and abstract accurately represent the article’s content.

4. Ensuring that the article type is correct.

5. Evaluating the scientific soundness of the article’s conclusions.

6. Determining whether the language of the article is readable.

7. If you have any concerns about the article’s scientific validity, such as unoriginal research, split parts of work, ethical issues, lack of necessary data, etc., please mention them. The Editorial Office will thoroughly examine all issues according to the proper protocols, including but not limited to its editorial and publishing ethics and policies.

8. Eliminate excessive manipulative citation by reviewers.


In addition to answering the editor’s questions, please provide detailed recommendations: acceptance, revisions, resubmission for review, or rejection. Please note that your decision will play a significant role in determining whether the article is accepted or not.


Acceptance: After editing, typesetting, and proofreading, the article is suitable for publication in the journal.

Revisions: The article is suitable for publication in the journal after the authors have responded to the review comments and made appropriate revisions.

Resubmission for review: After carefully considering the review comments, the authors have made significant revisions to the article to ensure it meets the high standards required for publication in the journal. This may require rewriting parts of the content or adding experiments. A new round of peer review will be created.

Rejection: This journal does not accept the manuscript for publication.



Authors have the right to appeal the editorial decision. Then an investigative team will be formed to review the entire peer review process. We urge all reviewers to follow our policies strictly and review articles fairly.