Archives of Academic Critical Care (AACC) relies on independent peer review to support fair, informed, and scientifically responsible editorial decisions.
Manuscripts selected for external review normally undergo double-anonymized peer review, in which the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
Reviewers serve in an advisory capacity. Their assessments inform editorial decisions, but the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection remains with the responsible academic editor and the Editor-in-Chief.
AACC expects reviewers to conduct peer review independently, confidentially, professionally, and without inappropriate influence.
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should determine whether the manuscript falls sufficiently within their area of expertise, whether they have any relationship or interest that could affect their impartiality, and whether they can complete the review within the requested period.
A reviewer who lacks sufficient expertise, has a relevant competing interest, or cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe should decline the invitation promptly.
When appropriate, a reviewer who declines may suggest alternative experts. Suggested reviewers should be proposed because of relevant expertise and independence.
↑ Back to topReviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their assessment of a manuscript.
Potential competing interests may arise from financial relationships, recent or ongoing collaborations, institutional relationships, direct academic competition, personal relationships, involvement in closely related research, or other circumstances relevant to the manuscript.
When the significance of a potential competing interest is uncertain, the reviewer should disclose it to the Editorial Office rather than make the determination independently.
Reviewers should decline the review when a relevant conflict prevents an impartial assessment.
If a competing interest becomes apparent after the review has begun, the reviewer should inform the editor promptly.
↑ Back to topAll manuscripts submitted to AACC are treated as confidential scholarly communications.
Reviewers must not disclose the manuscript, its contents, unpublished findings, supplementary files, editorial correspondence, or information obtained during peer review to unauthorized individuals.
Material obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer's own research, publication, professional advantage, commercial activity, or the benefit or disadvantage of another individual or organization before the work becomes publicly available through an authorized route.
Reviewers should not publicly discuss manuscripts under consideration.
Manuscript files and other confidential material should not be retained for personal use after completion of the review.
↑ Back to topAACC uses a double-anonymized peer-review model for manuscripts selected for external review.
Reviewers should not actively attempt to identify the authors of a submitted manuscript.
In some circumstances, author identity may become apparent because of trial registration, preprints, conference presentations, previous publications, specialized datasets, or other publicly available information. Recognition of an author's identity does not automatically invalidate a review.
However, if actual or suspected knowledge of the authors' identities creates a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer should inform the editor.
Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors except where the reviewer has explicitly agreed to disclosure or where disclosure is required in exceptional legal or research-integrity circumstances.
↑ Back to topA review invitation is personal and should not be transferred to another individual.
Reviewers who wish to involve a colleague, trainee, fellow, or other researcher in preparing a review must obtain permission from the journal before sharing any manuscript material.
When another individual contributes to a review with editorial permission, their contribution and identity should be disclosed to the journal so that the contribution can be recorded appropriately.
The invited reviewer remains responsible for the confidentiality and integrity of the review process.
↑ Back to topSubmitted manuscripts and peer-review materials are confidential.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, abstracts, tables, figures, supplementary files, unpublished data, or other confidential manuscript content to generative artificial intelligence systems or external AI services when confidentiality, data retention, ownership, or secondary use of the information cannot be assured.
A reviewer who wishes to use an AI-assisted technology in a manner involving manuscript content must obtain prior permission from AACC.
Any authorized substantive use of AI in preparing a review should be disclosed to the editor.
AI-generated output does not replace independent scientific judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, reasoning, and content of their reports.
↑ Back to topReviewer assessments should be based on the scientific and scholarly content of the manuscript.
Nationality, ethnicity, race, sex, gender, religion, political belief, institutional prestige, geographic location, career stage, professional status, or presumed identity of an author should not influence the review.
Scientific disagreement is acceptable and often useful. Personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory statements, unsupported accusations, or comments unrelated to the scientific content are not acceptable.
Reviewer reports should be constructive, specific, and written in professional language suitable for communication to authors and editors.
↑ Back to topReviewers should provide sufficient reasoning to allow the editors and authors to understand the basis of their assessment.
Comments intended for the authors should focus on issues relevant to the manuscript and should not contain confidential recommendations concerning acceptance or rejection when those recommendations are provided separately to the editor.
Reviewers may distinguish between substantive issues that affect the interpretation or reliability of the manuscript and optional suggestions intended to improve clarity or presentation.
Requests for unnecessary additional experiments, analyses, citations, or rewriting should be avoided.
The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the manuscript submitted, not to require authors to conduct an entirely different study.
↑ Back to topReviewers may recommend additional references when those references are directly relevant and materially improve the manuscript.
Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to their own work, the work of colleagues, a particular journal, institution, or research group.
Citation recommendations should be based on scientific relevance rather than citation metrics or personal interest.
Systematic or coercive citation manipulation is incompatible with AACC editorial policy.
↑ Back to topReviewers who identify a possible research-integrity or publication-ethics concern should report it confidentially to the editor.
Concerns may involve suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, undisclosed competing interests, inappropriate authorship, ethical approval or consent issues, trial-registration concerns, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or other potential misconduct.
Reviewers should not contact the authors directly regarding suspected misconduct.
Reviewers are not expected to conduct independent investigations. The journal will determine the appropriate next steps in accordance with its Editorial and Publication Policies and, where relevant, established publication-ethics guidance.
Potential misconduct should be distinguished from ordinary methodological disagreement or honest error.
↑ Back to topThe journal's review system may ask reviewers to select an overall recommendation such as:
The recommendation should be consistent with the substantive concerns described in the review.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial outcome by numerical majority.
Editors consider the reasoning and evidence contained in reviewer reports and may reach a decision that differs from an individual reviewer's recommendation.
The final editorial decision remains with AACC.
↑ Back to topReviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when information is inappropriate for direct communication to the authors.
This section may be used for matters such as serious research-integrity concerns, undisclosed competing interests, concerns about reviewer identity or confidentiality, or other sensitive editorial information.
Confidential comments should not be used to make unsupported allegations or to provide a substantially different scientific assessment from the comments supplied to the authors without a legitimate reason.
↑ Back to topReviewers should submit their reports within the timeframe agreed when accepting the invitation.
If an unexpected circumstance prevents timely completion, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office as early as possible.
The journal may extend the deadline when appropriate or assign another reviewer when timely editorial processing requires it.
A prompt decline is preferable to accepting a review that cannot reasonably be completed.
↑ Back to topA reviewer may be invited to evaluate a revised version of a manuscript.
When assessing a revision, reviewers should consider the authors' response to the previous comments and whether the major issues relevant to the manuscript have been addressed adequately.
Authors are not required to accept every reviewer suggestion. A scientifically reasoned explanation may be an appropriate response to a recommendation.
A revised manuscript should not be required to conform to a reviewer's personal preference when the authors have provided a scientifically reasonable alternative.
↑ Back to topReviewers should not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review.
Questions, requests for clarification, ethical concerns, and other communications concerning a submission should be sent through the AACC editorial system or Editorial Office.
This separation protects reviewer confidentiality and ensures that relevant communication remains part of the editorial record.
↑ Back to topAACC operates an anonymized reviewer model and does not disclose reviewer identities to authors as part of the routine peer-review process.
The journal may acknowledge the collective contribution of reviewers without linking individual reviewers to specific manuscripts.
Where technically available, AACC may provide documentation or other appropriate recognition of completed peer-review activity without compromising manuscript confidentiality.
Reviewer participation does not imply endorsement of the final published article.
↑ Back to topReviewer reports are considered confidential components of the editorial record.
Editors evaluate reviewer comments critically rather than treating them as binding instructions.
The journal may seek an additional review, statistical assessment, methodological consultation, or editorial opinion when reviewer reports conflict substantially or when specialist expertise is required.
AACC reserves the right not to transmit comments that contain personal attacks, discriminatory statements, breaches of confidentiality, requests for inappropriate citations, or other material inconsistent with the journal's review standards.
↑ Back to topEditorial Board membership does not affect the standards applied during peer review.
When an AACC editor or Editorial Board member is an author of a submitted manuscript, that individual does not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential reviewer identities, participate in editorial deliberations, or influence the final decision.
Such manuscripts are assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest.
Reviewers evaluating these manuscripts are expected to apply the same standards used for all other submissions.
↑ Back to topConfidentiality obligations concerning information obtained exclusively through peer review continue after the review has been completed.
If a reviewer subsequently becomes aware of a serious issue that could materially affect the reliability or integrity of a manuscript they reviewed, the concern may be communicated confidentially to the Editorial Office.
The journal will determine whether further editorial assessment is necessary.
↑ Back to topAACC's reviewer policies are informed by internationally recognized standards for biomedical and scholarly publishing, including the ICMJE Recommendations and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reference to these standards indicates the principles informing AACC's editorial procedures and does not imply organizational membership unless membership is explicitly stated by the journal.
↑ Back to topQuestions about a review invitation, competing interests, confidentiality, extensions, research-integrity concerns, or the peer-review process may be directed to:
Archives of Academic Critical Care (AACC) Editorial Office Email: aaccjournal@treatascholars.com
Peer-review model: Double-anonymized
Reviewer identity: Confidential
Usual external review: At least two independent reviewers
Final decision: Academic Editor / Editor-in-Chief
AI use involving confidential manuscript content: Requires prior editorial permission