Peer Review Process

At the Annals of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ACGH), we believe that rigorous peer review is the cornerstone of trustworthy scholarly publishing. This comprehensive document details every facet of our peer-review process—from initial submission through final decision—framed within ethical standards and aligned with our double-blind review model. We elaborate on roles, workflows, timelines, quality assurance measures, conflict management, appeals, transparency protocols, and continuous improvement practices.

1. Purpose and Philosophy

Peer review serves multiple essential functions: validating the originality and scientific rigor of research, enhancing clarity and presentation, ensuring reproducibility and ethical compliance, and guiding editorial decisions. ACGH embraces a system that emphasizes equitable evaluation—prioritizing merit over identity.

Guiding Principle: We judge submissions based on “validity, significance, and originality, rather than who has done it.”

2. Submission and Initial Screening

All manuscripts begin with a two-step submission:

  1. Title Page (with author details): Separate document to preserve anonymity.
  2. Main Manuscript (without author information): For blind review.

On receipt, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial screening to assess scope fit, formatting compliance, research novelty, and ethical eligibility. Manuscripts that fail these basic checks are desk-rejected.

Tip: Submissions must strictly follow format and anonymization rules to avoid early rejection. This step helps preserve reviewers’ time and uphold process efficiency.

Once passed, manuscripts advance to peer review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review Model

ACGH mandates a double-blind peer review, meaning both author and reviewer identities remain confidential to each other throughout the review process. This maximizes impartiality and minimizes bias. Authors must submit a de-identified version of their manuscript to preserve anonymity and remove potential influences.

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief based on subject expertise, known record of fairness, and absence of conflicts. A minimum of two independent reviewers are appointed for each manuscript, with additional reviewers invited for specialized or interdisciplinary content.

4. Reviewer Invitation & Management

Invited reviewers receive a confidential invitation containing a complete abstract, background of the study, and a call to declare any potential conflict of interest. If a reviewer recognizes any conflict—professional, institutional, financial, or relational—they must recuse themselves immediately. Reviewers are also asked to provide their availability and estimated completion date.

Once accepted, reviewers gain access to anonymized figures, supplementary material, and the manuscript via a secure submission platform. Editorial support is available for clarification or additional instructions.

Review quality is monitored, and reviewers who deliver timely, thorough, and balanced evaluations are acknowledged—subject to their preference—through recognition platforms like Publons or internal records.

5. Review Criteria & Writing Reports

Reviewers are instructed to consider:

  • Originality & significance to the field of gastroenterology/hepatology
  • Methodological rigor including design, analysis, reproducibility
  • Clinical and translational implications
  • Clarity and presentation of texts, figures, tables
  • Ethics compliance and integrity in data, consent, and registration

Review reports should typically include:

  • Summary: Brief restatement of aims and conclusions to demonstrate understanding
  • Major concerns: Methodological flaws or omissions that fundamentally affect validity
  • Minor comments: Formatting, style, or ancillary suggestions
  • Recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject

6. Decision Making & Editorial Oversight

After reviewer submissions, the Editor-in-Chief reviews reports, resolves discrepancies, and issues a final decision from these options:

  • Accept – No changes needed
  • Minor revision – Easily addressable items
  • Major revision – Significant concerns that must be resolved before acceptance
  • Reject – Unsuitable for publication at this time

Editorial decisions are supported by transparent rationales summarizing reviewer input and specifying required actions.

7. Revision Cycle & Final Acceptance

Authors submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments along with a revised manuscript. The editor may:

  • Review changes internally
  • Send back to original reviewers for confirmation
  • Approve revisions or request further changes.

Once all requirements are met, the manuscript is approved for production, DOI assignment, archiving, and open access publication.

8. Handling Misconduct During Review

If plagiarism or ethical violations are detected mid-review, editors follow our Retraction & Misconduct Policies. Suspended or withdrawn manuscripts may be archived privately and retracted according to COPE guidelines.([turn0search0])

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions by submitting written justification within specified period. Appeals are evaluated by independent senior editors, with outcomes communicated in detail. Re-review may be conducted when appropriate.

10. Timelines & Performance Metrics

Typical timelines:

  • Initial screening: Within 2 weeks
  • Peer review completion: 4–6 weeks
  • Final decision: Within 1 week after reviews, totaling ~8–10 weeks overall

The Editorial team monitors performance with dashboards showing average review time, acceptance rates, and reviewer responsiveness.

11. Transparent Practices & Future Trends

While ACGH currently maintains a double-blind model, we remain open to exploring forms of transparent or open peer review aligned with community standards and feedback.

Last updated: 2025-09-02