Peer Review Policy
All manuscripts submitted to AGPM will follow the following procedures:
1. After the plagiarism check is completed, the initial submission is reviewed by in-house editors to ensure adherence to journal policies and for a double-blind peer review.
2. Editor-in-chief decides on the manuscript to be sent out for review process and assigns the manuscript to one of the editors according to the particular topic.
3. Section Editors usually manage the Review of submissions and the editing of those that are accepted. Depending on the AGPM's policies, however, a Section Editor initially assigned to a submission by an Editor may be asked only to see it through the Review stage, after which, if the submission is accepted, the Editor takes over (in the role of Section Editor). Editors send requests to Section Editors to see a submission through the editorial process.
4. Peer reviewer selection is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest and previous performance. A minimum of 3 independent-external reviewers will be selected according to their expertise and suitability to the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers should feed back their comments and recommendations in about 3 to 5 weeks after the receipt of the manuscript.
5. After evaluations by the reviewers have been received, the editor-in-chief makes one of the following recommendations: Accept Submission; Revisions Required; Resubmit for Review and Decline Submission.
6. If the decision is Revisions Required, the authors have three weeks to resubmit the revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts must contain a detailed point by point response to the comments of the reviewers. The response to reviewers has to be uploaded as a separate file.
7. If the decision is Resubmit for Review, the authors have two weeks to resubmit the manuscript. After resubmission, the same procedures as for the initial submission applies.
8. Authors may appeal for a rejected submission. Appeal requests must be made in writing to editorial@syncsci.com with detailed reasons for the appeal and point by point responses to the reviewer’s remarks.
9. For all manuscripts accepted for publication, the peer review process will be deemed to be completed. The manuscript will proceed to be copyedited，layout edited and proofread before being published online.
Note: The author may suggest up to three academically qualified reviewers for consideration. Please insert the current contact details of the reviewer and state the reason(s) for recommendation under the "Comments for the Editor" section. However, please take note that the Editorial team strives to ensure the peer review process is fair, unbiased and hence, there is no guarantee that a recommended reviewer will be approached to perform the peer review.
What are editors and reviewers looking for?
During the peer review process, editors, and reviewers look for the following:
- 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?
