For Reviewers

Academic Publishing Pte. Ltd. publishes high-quality articles. A strict double-blind peer review process is applied and at least two independent-valid reports from external reviewers are required for each submission in order to make a fair and scientific editorial decision. This section provides general information for scholars who would like to serve as a reviewer for the journals published by Academic Publishing Pte. Ltd.

Who can become a reviewer?

Reviewers play a vital role in controlling the academic quality of journal articles. Academic Publishing Pte. Ltd. takes a rigorous approach to the selection of reviewers by screening candidates from the following aspects.

  • Holding a PhD or equivalent;
  • Having relevant research experience (including a publication record) in the field of the served journal;
  • Having no conflict of interest with the authors (e.g., coming from the same affiliation as any of the authors).

How to become a reviewer?

Scholars who would like to become reviewers can send their CVs to the Editorial Office or ask for recommendations from editorial board members or a colleague who serves the journal.

Scholars cannot self-register as reviewers. The Editorial Office will register accounts for scholars meeting the above criteria. Scholars can login to the OJS system to view requested review tasks. Reviewers who complete a valid review are provided with a discounted Article Processing Charge (depending on the specific policy of each journal, please contact the Journal Office). 

Review steps

  1. Login to reviewers’ accounts and check the request. Please respond to an invitation as soon as possible, even if the decision is to decline the invitation. We encourage reviewers who decline the invitation to recommend alternative reviewers. Before accepting an invitation to review an article, reviewers should carefully read the peer review policy of the served journal, as well as its focus and scope. Reviewers are required to declare any conflict of interest at this stage. Once accepting an invitation, reviewers should complete the review by the due date (usually two weeks). If more time is needed, please inform the Editorial Office in advance. It is prohibited to share the material or information about the review with others (except editors) who are not involved in the processing of the article.
  2. View the guidelines that help reviewers evaluate the article scientifically.
  3. Download the article, and conduct reviewing. There are two boxes where reviewers can enter their comments (a review report), one for authors and editors, and one for editors only. Reviewers can also upload a file (e.g., a revised version of the article). Please note that as we apply a double-blind peer review mode, both the identities of the authors and reviewers should remain anonymous to each other.

The following aspects should be taken into account when writing comments:

  • the relevance of the topic to the journal;
  • the novelty of the topic;
  • the structure of the paper;
  • whether the article type is correct;
  • whether the title reflects the content and the abstract summarizes the full paper;
  • the relevance of references (including whether there are too old references);
  • the language of the paper;
  • any misconduct activities;

Reviewers may recommend literature that can help authors improve their research, but they must not over-recommend the reviewer's articles for the sole purpose of increasing citation counts.

  1. Make recommendations.
  • Accept Submission: No revision is required.
  • Revisions Required: Minor revisions are required before the submission is accepted.
  • Resubmit for Review: Major revisions are required and another round or more rounds of peer review will be initiated.
  • Decline Submission: The submission is not considered for publication due to serious flaws or not contributing to the research community.
  1. Post peer review

Authors may appeal against the results of the peer review, at which time an investigation team will be formed to review the entire peer review process. Reviewers are obliged to cooperate with the investigation team.