Peer Review Policy

The Annals of Dermatological Research (ADR) follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the integrity, accuracy, and quality of published content. Our peer review policy is guided by international best practices, including the recommendations of COPE, ICMJE, and WAME.

ADR employs a double-blind peer review system, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to ensure impartiality and fairness.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review system aims to:

  • Ensure manuscripts meet high scientific and ethical standards.
  • Provide constructive feedback to authors for improving their work.
  • Filter out submissions with plagiarism, bias, or poor scientific rigor.
  • Maintain transparency, fairness, and accountability in editorial decisions.

Types of Peer Review Used

ADR currently uses the following peer review models:

  • Double-Blind Review: Both authors and reviewers are anonymous.
  • Open Review (upon request): In selected cases, reviewer identities may be disclosed for transparency.

Peer Review Workflow

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: Manuscripts are checked for originality, scope, and ethical compliance.
  2. Assignment to Reviewers: At least two independent reviewers are selected based on subject expertise.
  3. Review Reports: Reviewers assess manuscripts on originality, methodology, clarity, and significance.
  4. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer feedback and journal policies.
  5. Revision Process: Authors may be asked to revise manuscripts in response to reviewer comments.
  6. Final Acceptance: Accepted manuscripts undergo final checks for quality, formatting, and ethics.

Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are chosen for their expertise, impartiality, and track record in research.
  • Conflicts of interest are carefully avoided.
  • Diversity of reviewers is prioritized to ensure balanced perspectives.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide objective, timely, and constructive feedback.
  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest.
  • Identify ethical issues or scientific misconduct if observed.

Editorial Responsibilities

  • Maintain independence in editorial decision-making.
  • Ensure fairness and equality in manuscript evaluation.
  • Provide clear communication to authors regarding decisions.
  • Adhere to COPE guidelines in handling appeals and complaints.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from sharing or discussing manuscripts outside the review process.

Timeline

ADR strives to provide initial editorial decisions within 2–3 weeks of submission. The full review process, including revisions, generally takes 4–6 weeks depending on reviewer availability and author responsiveness.

Misconduct Handling

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations identified during peer review are investigated according to COPE flowcharts. If misconduct is confirmed, manuscripts may be rejected or retracted.

Transparency and Accountability

ADR ensures transparency in peer review by:

  • Offering authors detailed reviewer feedback.
  • Maintaining documentation of all editorial communications.
  • Providing opportunities for appeal in case of disputes.

FAQs

Are reviewers paid?

No. Reviewing is a voluntary contribution to the scientific community.

Can authors suggest reviewers?

Yes, authors may suggest reviewers, but the final choice rests with the editorial office.

What happens if reviewers disagree?

Editors may invite a third reviewer to resolve conflicting recommendations.