EDITORIAL DECISION FRAMEWORK
Expert evidence informs an independent editorial decision
Reviewers recommend; the handling editor is responsible for the decision. Revision and re-review can occur more than once.
Purpose of review
Peer review helps editors evaluate scientific validity, relevance, clarity and contribution. It also gives authors informed feedback that can strengthen a manuscript.
Reviewer responsibilities
Reviewers should assess work within their expertise, disclose conflicts, protect confidential material, avoid personal criticism and provide comments supported by scientific reasoning.
Editorial responsibility
Review recommendations inform but do not replace editorial judgment. Editors consider the manuscript, reviewer evidence, author responses and journal standards when reaching decisions.
How manuscripts reach reviewers
A manuscript is considered for external review only after editorial screening. Editors seek reviewers whose expertise fits the methods, study setting and domain, not merely the manuscript’s keywords. Potential conflicts and availability should be considered before an invitation is accepted.
What reviewers should evaluate
A useful review explains the research contribution, assesses whether the design supports the conclusions, identifies significant methodological or reporting gaps, and suggests actionable improvements. Comments should distinguish essential scientific changes from optional editorial preferences and avoid unsupported allegations.
Confidentiality, impartiality and conflicts
Manuscript files, unpublished data and correspondence should be treated as confidential. A reviewer should disclose relationships or interests that could compromise impartiality and should not use confidential materials for personal advantage. Reviewer identity and any anonymity practices follow the journal’s applicable instructions for the article type concerned.
Decisions, revisions and appeals
Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not determine them automatically. Authors receiving revision requests should respond point by point with evidence and a marked or otherwise traceable updated manuscript when requested. Substantive concerns about process can be submitted to the journal office with the manuscript identifier and a reasoned explanation.
Why rigorous review may take time
Assessment time depends on subject specialization, reviewer availability and the extent of revision. AHFE Discoveries should not promise an arbitrary turnaround time or acceptance probability. Clear submissions, complete metadata and well-organized responses help avoid unnecessary administrative delays.
Use your manuscript ID when contacting the journal office. The secure AHFE Discoveries submission platform remains the authoritative record for your manuscript's current status and required actions.
Open manuscript workspace → Contact the journal office →