Peer review Policy

Peer review Guidelines

Peer review is the evaluation of an article by one or more people. It is a form of self-regulation by qualified members (peers) of a certain profession in a related field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In Acquaint, peer review is often used to determine whether an article is suitable for publication. Peer review can be classified according to the type of activity and the field or profession in which the activity takes place. 

Acquaint Publication journals follows a Double-blind peer-review model. In line with the journal's aims and mission, papers are usually peer-reviewed by two independent academic experts, and additional or supplementary reviews by experts may be sought to ensure high-quality, impactful, academically rigorous, academically rigorous, and policy-relevant.

The double-blind peer-review process 

 In this model, the reviewer and author are anonymous. Some of the advantages of this model are listed below. 

 • The anonymity of the author limits the biases of the reviewers, for example, based on the author's gender, country of origin, academic status, or previous publication history. 
 • Articles written by well-known or well-known authors are considered based on the content of their work rather than reputation.

Peer review is essential for the quality of published research. Your submitted article will be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers' comments will help the editor decide whether to accept or reject your article for publication. 

Goals of the peer review process, reviewers look into

  • Scope: Is the article appropriate for this publication?
  • Novelty: Is this original material distinct from previous publications?
  • Validity: Is the study well designed and executed?
  • Data: Are the data reported, analyzed, and interpreted correctly?
  • Clarity: Are the ideas expressed clearly, concisely, and logically?
  • Compliance: Are all ethical and journal requirements met?
  • Advancement: Is this a significant contribution to the field?

In Detail Peer Review process

  • The Managing Editor first examines manuscripts to ensure their completion and compliance with the formal requirements of the Guidelines for writers. Before being forwarded to the Editors' desk, manuscripts may be returned to authors so they can fix any problems.
  • Based on fit with the journal's scope, publishing standards, and interest to the policy community, the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors evaluate submissions and determine if they are eligible for progression to the next step of the review process.
  • For papers that make it beyond the editors' desk, an editor with the necessary subject-area knowledge will be assigned (however, depending on the manuscript's specific topic area, one of the editors may also fill this function). The editors review the paper and determine whether it allows for growth.
  • Once a manuscript has passed the editing step, it will normally be peer reviewed by two subject-matter experts, with the geographical focus and research methodology taken into consideration in the selection process.
  • The Editors have the final say over the manuscript and will make the final determination based on the reviewer reports.

Communications with authors

At each stage of the review process, authors will be provided with reasoned and constructive feedback about the decisions on their manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

Assigned Editors and reviewers should let the Editors know of any potential conflicts with the assigned manuscript, for instance, resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions. They should inform the editors and recuse themselves from the review process in such cases.


Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The confidentiality of participants in the review process is protected.


Editorial judgements that can be appealed require a proper appeal letter and point-by-point justification. According to generally accepted practises, appeals are only taken into account when there is evidence of (i) potential technical errors made by reviewers in their evaluation of the manuscript, (ii) new information or data that has emerged since the submission of a manuscript, and (iii) potential conflicts of interest of reviewers. Within seven days of receiving the decision notice, appeals against editorial decisions must be made.

Each manuscript is allowed one appeal. The Editor-in-Chief will confer with the editorial staff and, when necessary, seek additional counsel from the Editorial Advisory Board members. The Editor-in-Chief's choice is final.

Appeal letters should be addressed to the editorial office (

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Enter your e-mail address to stay informed about published articles, issue releases and latest updates on journal activities.