Persian Journal of Acarology (PJA) uses a double-blind peer review process to support fair, independent, and rigorous assessment of submitted manuscripts. Authors’ identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are withheld from authors. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, relevance to acarology, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical requirements.
1. Submission and Anonymization
Authors should submit a separate title page containing author names, affiliations, contact details, and corresponding author information. The manuscript provided for review should not contain author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or other information that directly identifies the authors. Identifying information should also be removed from file properties and supplementary materials intended for reviewers.
Previous work should be cited accurately and neutrally, without statements that reveal authorship. Information withheld for anonymous review should be supplied separately and restored in the final accepted manuscript where appropriate. Although these measures help protect anonymity, author identities may sometimes be inferred from the research topic, references, or publicly available work.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief initially assesses each submission for its relevance to the journal’s scope, scientific merit, presentation, and compliance with submission requirements. Manuscripts that meet these requirements are assigned to an appropriate subject editor for further evaluation.
Manuscripts may be returned for technical corrections or declined without external review if they fall outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient scientific contribution, or do not meet the journal’s editorial or ethical standards.
3. External Peer Review
Manuscripts selected for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers assess the originality and significance of the research, the suitability of the methods, the reliability of the results, and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence.
Reviewers also consider the clarity of presentation, the quality and relevance of references, and compliance with applicable ethical and disciplinary standards. Their reports should provide constructive, specific feedback that helps editors reach an informed decision and authors improve their manuscripts.
Reviewers are normally asked to submit their reports within three weeks. The overall review period may be longer depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional review or revision. This target is not a guarantee of a final decision within three weeks.
4. Editorial Decision
The handling editor considers the reviewers’ reports together with an independent assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers provide recommendations; responsibility for the editorial decision remains with the journal’s editors. Authors receive the decision and the reviewers’ comments, with reviewer identities withheld.
Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.
Minor revision: Limited changes are required before a final decision can be made.
Major revision: Substantial changes or clarification are required, and the revised manuscript may undergo further external review.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
5. Revision and Reassessment
When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed. Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a clear scientific explanation. Revised files and response letters intended for reviewers should continue to preserve author anonymity.
The handling editor assesses the revision and may consult the original reviewers or additional experts. Further revision may be requested when necessary. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.
6. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
Submitted manuscripts and review reports are confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts, use unpublished information for personal advantage, or contact authors directly about a submission. They should notify the handling editor of any suspected ethical concern.
Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline a review when a conflict could affect their impartiality. Editors with a conflict of interest should not participate in the assessment or decision-making process for the affected manuscript; responsibility should be assigned to an editor without that conflict.
7. Acceptance and Publication
Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production. Author information and other identifying details withheld during review are restored where appropriate. Authors may be asked to check proofs for accuracy before publication.
PJA does not charge fees at the submission, review, processing, or publication stages. There are no article processing charges (APCs).
