Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Annals of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ACGH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a comprehensive and transparent peer review process. This policy outlines our review model, timelines, evaluation criteria, confidentiality measures, conflict management, and appeals process to ensure fair and rigorous evaluation of all submissions.

Review Model

We employ a double-blind peer review model, where both reviewer and author identities remain concealed throughout the review process. This ensures unbiased evaluation based solely on scientific merit. Each submission is reviewed by at least two qualified experts, with additional reviewers consulted when needed to achieve consensus or cover specialized areas.

Timelines

  • Initial Editorial Decision: Within 2 weeks of submission
  • Peer Review Completion: 4–6 weeks from reviewer acceptance
  • Editorial Decision: Within 1 week after receipt of reviewer reports
  • Overall Timeline: Typically 8–10 weeks from submission to decision

Authors are notified if delays occur due to reviewer availability or additional evaluation requirements.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality: Novel contributions, avoiding duplication
  • Scientific Rigor: Robust methodology, valid analysis, sound interpretation
  • Clinical Relevance: Applicability to clinical practice and patient care
  • Clarity & Presentation: Logical flow, clear language, effective figures/tables
  • Ethical Compliance: Ethics approval, informed consent, transparent reporting
  • Data Quality: Adequate sample size, reproducibility, complete reporting

Confidentiality

We maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process to protect both authors and reviewers:

  • Manuscript content is privileged and accessible only to editors/reviewers
  • Reviewer identities remain anonymous under the double-blind model
  • Manuscripts are not shared outside the review process without permission
  • Review reports and correspondence are confidential to authors and editors
  • Reviewers must not retain, copy, or distribute manuscript materials

Conflict of Interest Management

We enforce strict conflict of interest policies to maintain impartial evaluations:

  • Reviewer Responsibilities: Must declare financial, personal, or institutional conflicts
  • Recusal: Reviewers with significant conflicts must decline review
  • Editorial Oversight: Editors monitor undisclosed conflicts and act as needed
  • Institutional Conflicts: Reviewers from same institution as authors are usually excluded
  • Recent Collaboration: Collaborations within the last 3 years must be declared

See our Ethics Policies and Editorial Policies for details.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions through a fair, structured process:

  • Appeal Submission: Written appeal within 30 days of decision
  • Review Process: Evaluated by senior editors not involved in original decision
  • Grounds: Procedural errors, reviewer bias, misinterpretation, or new evidence
  • Additional Review: May involve further experts or editorial board consultation
  • Decision Timeline: 4–6 weeks with detailed written outcome
  • Final Authority: Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final

This peer review policy ensures rigorous, fair, and transparent evaluation of submissions, while maintaining alignment with best practices in scholarly publishing. Our policies are continuously updated to reflect evolving standards in research integrity and review ethics.

Last updated: 2025-08-14