About APRIA’s Peer Review Process
APRIA chooses to peer review all contributions to ensure that the contributions meet the desired quality and to encourage authors/creators to optimize the quality of their research. APRIA uses two methods for peer review: double blind peer review for the issues of APRIA journal and peer review by the editorial board for the contributions on the platform.
In the case of a double blind peer review, the editorial board of a journal issue selects and approaches two peer reviewers for each contribution. The authors receive the comments from the reviewer(s) anonymously. In the case of peer review by the editorial board, the contributions are assessed by the members of the editorial board and in case of the submissions for the Open Calls by members of the APRIA platform advisory board with relevant expertise. Peer reviewers base their assessment of their assigned contributions on the general principles, scope, and quality requirements of APRIA. Authors/creators receive feedback from the editorial board whether their contribution should be adjusted for publication on APRIA following the comments from the peer reviewers. Also if a contribution is rejected, the author/creator will receive feedback from the advisory editorial board.
We ask editors of journal issues to fill out the checklist below to ensure all the required elements have been submitted for each contribution. The checklist can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org