Peer Review Process

All manuscripts that are sent in are first subject to a pre-process check that is performed by the editorial board. Here, the manuscript is checked if it complies with all of the agreed upon points in the checklist during the submission process, such as the style format, language and authorship.

After passing the preprocess check, manuscripts are then sent to the editor-in-chief, where it will be checked for other factors mentioned in the submission guidelines, such as the originality, similarity rate and figure’s clarity.

Finally, the editorial board/ editor sections will assign the manuscript to two evaluators who specialize in the research paper’s subject, where it is subjected to a double blind review.

A preliminary decision will be sent to the author, informing him of any issues/ criticisms of the submitted manuscripts. The author must then amend the manuscript with the editor’s recommendations and resubmit the manuscript.

The final manuscript will be checked and a final decision will be performed based on the reviewers’ recommendations, as follows:

Duties of Editors

All submitted manuscripts' intellectual content is checked neutrally without regard to the author's race, orientation, gender, age, religion, or political views. Manuscripts are confidential documents and should not be shared with third parties unless there is permission from an editor. All data that is submitted in the manuscript must only be used for publication purposes. 

 

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers must help the editors in making decisions, and may help the author to improve the quality of their manuscript using constructive criticism (and avoiding any personal hurtful remarks directed at the author). If a reviewer cannot complete their task in time due to any reason, the reviewer staff must be informed. The reviewer should also state any similarities found with other manuscripts in the field.

Reviewers should consider and declare any such competing interests.
Reviewers should have no competing interest related to the article under review, and he/she should tell us.
Reviewers should declare any association with the authors of a paper.

Reviewers should not declare the peer review results and must be kept confidential. Also, do not use any part of the paper or the peer review results for personal advantage.
https://acaa-p.com/index.php/index/acaapeer
acaa-p.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-21
12176
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MXNO2YH66GM22ESWRCGF5C5UIB7BM45E
<urn:uuid:aed4eb2f-1d86-408f-8eb1-40f652557716>
2022-05-27T02:03:20Z
65.60.61.250
text/html
sha1:QFMVYQHTASAHITGDQTULQ47HBRJEU5YJ
<urn:uuid:09c5bdda-97ce-489f-9540-31ca1f9c25cd>
https://acaa-p.com/index.php/index/acaapeer
response
<urn:uuid:6c71fe98-53db-4e9a-864c-4613c5a3e0a1>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-24
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/