Peer Review Process
6.1 Overview and Philosophy
ADES operates a double-anonymized peer review system. In this model, neither the authors nor the reviewers are disclosed to each other at any stage of the review process. The journal's editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigour, and relevance of the work. The perceived importance, novelty, or potential impact of the work are not criteria for rejection; a well-conducted, clearly reported study with valid and reproducible findings is publishable in ADES regardless of whether its results are positive, negative, or null. ADES actively welcomes high-quality replication studies.
6.2 Editorial Workflow
The standard editorial workflow at ADES proceeds as follows:
Stage 1: Administrative Check
Upon submission, the editorial assistant verifies that the manuscript is complete (all required files are present), that it conforms to basic formatting requirements, and that the submission declarations (originality, ethical approval, competing interests) have been completed. Submissions that are incomplete or do not meet minimum quality standards for academic writing may be returned to authors at this stage without peer review.
Stage 2: Scope and Desk Review
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Senior Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript falls within the scope of ADES and meets threshold standards for scientific rigour, clarity, and originality. Manuscripts judged to be out of scope, to lack originality, or to contain fundamental methodological flaws may be rejected at this stage. Authors will receive a brief explanation. This desk rejection is not a reflection on the value of the research, but on its fit with the journal.
Stage 3: Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass desk review are assigned to a handling editor with appropriate expertise. The handling editor selects at least two independent peer reviewers, taking into account subject expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, geographic and gender diversity, and reviewer workload. Authors may suggest up to four reviewers and may request the exclusion of specific individuals, with reasons; the final selection of reviewers rests entirely with the editor. Reviewers are expected to decline invitations if they have a conflict of interest.
Stage 4: External Peer Review
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript on the following dimensions: (i) scientific validity and methodological soundness; (ii) originality and significance of the contribution; (iii) clarity, organisation, and language; (iv) accuracy and completeness of the data and analysis; (v) adequacy of references; and (vi) compliance with ethical requirements. Reviewers submit a written report accompanied by an overall recommendation: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; or Reject.
Stage 5: Editorial Decision
The handling editor synthesizes the reviewers' reports and makes a decision, which is communicated to the corresponding author with the full reviewer reports. The following decisions are possible: ■ Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections. ■ Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small, specified changes that can be addressed without re-review. Authors are given 14 days to revise. ■ Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes, including additional experiments, re-analysis, or significant rewriting. Authors are given 45 days to revise. The revised manuscript will be returned to the original reviewers. ■ Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in ADES in its current form and the deficiencies identified cannot be addressed through revision. Stage 6: Revised Manuscript Submission
Stage 6: Revised Manuscript Submission
Authors submitting a revised manuscript must include: (i) a tracked-changes version of the revised manuscript; (ii) a clean version of the revised manuscript; and (iii) a point-by-point Response to Reviewers document that addresses every comment raised by reviewers and the editor, quoting the original comment and explaining the changes made (or providing a clear justification if a suggestion has not been followed). Revisions not accompanied by a response document will not be processed.
Processing Timeline
| Stage | Target Timeframe |
|---|---|
| Initial administrative check | 1?3 working days |
| Desk review and scope assessment | 3?7 working days |
| First editorial decision (after peer review) | 45 days from submission |
| Minor revision review | 14 days from author resubmission |
| Major revision review | 30 days from author resubmission |
| Final decision to acceptance confirmation | 7 working days |
| Acceptance to online publication (First Look) | 15?30 days |
Appeals
Authors who believe that a rejection decision was made in error due to a factual misunderstanding of the science, a failure to apply the journal's stated editorial criteria, or a demonstrable reviewer bias may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the rejection decision. Appeals must be based on specific scientific or editorial grounds; they should not simply express disagreement with the reviewers' assessments. A second rejection following appeal is final. Appeals submitted after the 30-day window will not be considered.