- Purpose and Scope
AMG Transcend Association requires the journals it publishes to maintain transparent, independent, and appropriately documented peer-review processes that support the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of published scholarly work.
This policy establishes publisher-level principles for peer review across the AMG Transcend Association journal portfolio. Each journal must maintain its own publicly available peer-review policy describing the procedures applicable to that journal, including its peer-review model, editorial workflow, reviewer selection procedures, decision-making process, and any journal-specific requirements.
The detailed operation of peer review may vary between journals and article types, provided that it remains consistent with the principles established in this policy.
- Role of Peer Review
Peer review provides independent expert assessment to support editorial decision-making and to assist authors in improving the quality, clarity, rigor, and scholarly value of their work.
Peer review is an important component of editorial evaluation but does not transfer responsibility for publication decisions from editors to reviewers.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Decisions concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection remain the responsibility of the journal’s authorized editors and must be made in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and standards.
- Transparency of the Peer-Review Process
Each AMG Transcend Association journal must publicly describe its peer-review process in sufficient detail for authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders to understand how submitted manuscripts are evaluated.
The journal-specific policy should identify, as applicable:
- the peer-review model used;
- which categories of content are subject to peer review;
- the role of initial editorial screening;
- how manuscripts are assigned to editors;
- how reviewers are selected;
- the role of reviewer reports in editorial decisions;
- how revisions and additional review may be handled; and
- who has authority to make final editorial decisions.
AMG Transcend Association does not impose a single peer-review model, fixed number of reviewers, or universal review timeframe across all journals. Such arrangements must be determined and disclosed by each journal according to its scope, editorial structure, and types of content.
- Initial Editorial Assessment
Journals may conduct an editorial assessment before external peer review.
Initial screening may consider whether a submission:
- falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
- satisfies basic submission and reporting requirements;
- presents a sufficiently developed scholarly contribution;
- complies with applicable research and publication ethics requirements; and
- raises concerns requiring clarification before peer review.
Initial editorial screening is distinct from external peer review.
A manuscript may be declined without external review when an authorized editor determines that it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet basic editorial or scholarly requirements, or cannot appropriately proceed under the journal’s policies.
Such decisions must be based on legitimate editorial considerations and must not be influenced by inappropriate financial, commercial, institutional, personal, or other external interests.
- Selection and Independence of Reviewers
Reviewers must be selected primarily on the basis of relevant expertise and their ability to provide an informed and impartial assessment of the manuscript.
Editors should consider appropriate evidence of expertise, which may include scholarly publications, research or professional experience, methodological expertise, or other relevant contributions to the field.
Reviewer selection must not rely solely on mechanical criteria such as a fixed number of publications, academic rank, geographic location, or institutional prestige.
Editors are responsible for considering whether proposed reviewers have relationships or competing interests that could reasonably compromise the independence of the review.
Author-suggested reviewers may be considered where permitted by a journal, but authors must not control reviewer selection. Editors remain responsible for independently assessing the suitability and independence of all reviewers.
- Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must provide assessments that are objective, constructive, evidence-based, and appropriate to the nature of the submission.
Where relevant, reviewers should consider matters such as:
- scientific or scholarly validity;
- originality and contribution to the field;
- appropriateness of study design and methodology;
- quality and transparency of data and analysis;
- consistency between evidence, interpretation, and conclusions;
- compliance with applicable ethical and reporting requirements;
- clarity and completeness of presentation; and
- relevance to the scope of the journal.
Reviewers should distinguish substantive concerns affecting the validity or interpretation of the work from minor matters of presentation.
Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, coercive citation requests, unsupported allegations, and other inappropriate reviewer conduct are not acceptable.
Reviewers must not use their role to promote their own publications, those of particular journals, or other citations that are not genuinely relevant to the manuscript.
- Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and other unpublished materials associated with peer review must be treated as confidential.
Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, data, results, ideas, or editorial information to unauthorized third parties or use information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, financial, or competitive advantage.
Reviewers must not involve another person in the review without authorization from the responsible editor.
Confidential manuscript materials must not be uploaded to external artificial-intelligence systems or other third-party services where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or data-protection requirements.
Responsibility for the content and conclusions of a review remains with the reviewer.
- Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.
Relevant interests may include financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, academic, or personal relationships involving the authors, their institutions, the subject matter of the manuscript, or other parties with a material interest in the work.
Where an impartial assessment cannot reasonably be ensured, the reviewer must decline the assignment or withdraw from the review process.
Editors must also manage their own competing interests and recuse themselves where appropriate in accordance with applicable publisher and journal policies.
Detailed requirements concerning competing interests are addressed in the Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests policy.
- Editorial Evaluation and Decisions
Editorial decisions must be based on the manuscript, relevant reviewer reports, the editor’s independent scholarly judgment, and compliance with applicable journal policies.
Editors are not required to follow reviewer recommendations mechanically. Where reviewer reports conflict, are insufficient, raise unresolved concerns, or do not provide an adequate basis for decision-making, editors may seek additional reviews, specialist advice, clarification, or further assessment.
Acceptance must not result solely from favorable reviewer recommendations, and rejection must not result solely from an automated score, similarity percentage, or other mechanical threshold.
Similarity-detection and other screening tools may support editorial assessment but must not replace informed editorial judgment. Similarity reports must be interpreted in context, including the nature and source of any identified overlap.
Editorial decisions must remain independent of inappropriate commercial, financial, institutional, or other external influence in accordance with the Editorial Independence and Governance policy.
- Revisions and Further Review
Authors may be asked to revise manuscripts in response to editorial or reviewer concerns.
A request for revision does not constitute acceptance or guarantee eventual publication.
Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the responsible editor, returned to one or more previous reviewers, or sent for additional independent review where appropriate.
The extent of further review should reflect the nature and significance of the revisions and any unresolved scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial concerns.
Journals should avoid unnecessary review rounds where substantive concerns have been adequately resolved.
- Submissions Involving Editors or Editorial Board Members
Manuscripts submitted by Editors-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, or other individuals involved in a journal’s editorial activities must not receive preferential treatment.
Where an author would otherwise have editorial authority over the manuscript, that individual must be excluded from its handling and decision-making.
Responsibility must be assigned to another qualified editor without a relevant conflict of interest. That editor must have independent authority over reviewer selection, peer-review management, evaluation of revisions, and the editorial decision.
The submitting editor or Editorial Board member must not select reviewers, access confidential reviewer identities beyond what the journal’s normal peer-review model permits, participate in editorial deliberations, or influence the outcome of the manuscript.
The same principles apply where another relationship creates a significant conflict affecting editorial independence.
- Ethical and Integrity Concerns Identified During Review
Reviewers should confidentially report concerns relating to possible plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, unethical research, undisclosed competing interests, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, or other potential integrity problems.
Reviewers are not expected to conduct misconduct investigations.
Editors are responsible for assessing reported concerns and determining whether clarification, additional evidence, further review, referral under applicable publication-ethics procedures, or other action is required.
Allegations must be handled fairly and proportionately and must not be treated as established misconduct without appropriate assessment.
- Documentation and Accountability
Peer-review and editorial processes should be documented through the journal’s authorized editorial systems or official communication channels to support accountability, continuity, and appropriate record keeping.
Editors, reviewers, and editorial personnel are responsible for carrying out their assigned roles in accordance with applicable confidentiality, competing-interest, research-integrity, and editorial-independence requirements.
AMG Transcend Association expects each journal to maintain peer-review procedures appropriate to its scholarly scope and to review those procedures periodically when editorial practices or requirements materially change.
- Relationship with Journal Policies
This publisher-level policy establishes common principles and does not replace the detailed peer-review procedures of individual AMG Transcend Association journals.
Authors and reviewers should consult the relevant journal website for information concerning the specific peer-review model, editorial workflow, review criteria, reviewer guidance, and decision procedures applicable to their submission.
This policy should be read together with applicable policies concerning Editorial Independence and Governance, Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests, Publication Ethics and Research Integrity, Research Ethics, Data Integrity and Reproducibility, and Complaints and Appeals.