AQCH is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a transparent, fair, and rigorous peer review process in accordance with internationally recognized ethical guidelines, including COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) recommendations and Scopus journal quality standards.

Peer Review Model

AQCH follows a double-blind peer review process, in which:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors

This ensures impartiality, reduces bias, and maintains academic integrity.

Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process is designed to:

• Improve the quality and clarity of manuscripts
• Ensure scientific validity and originality
• Evaluate methodological rigor and ethical compliance
• Assist editors in making informed publication decisions

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject expertise relevant to the manuscript
• Publication record and academic qualifications
• Experience in cytopathology, histopathology, biomedical, or related fields
• Absence of conflicts of interest

Potential reviewers are identified through editorial databases, published literature, editorial board networks, and author suggestions (when appropriate).

Review Process Workflow

All manuscripts follow a structured review process:

• Initial editorial screening (scope, quality, plagiarism check)
• Assignment to at least two independent expert reviewers
• Double-blind peer review evaluation
• Reviewer feedback and recommendations
• Editorial decision based on reviewer reports and journal standards

Editorial Decision Categories

Based on peer review evaluation, manuscripts may receive:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Scientific originality and significance
• Study design and methodological rigor
• Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation
• Ethical compliance and approvals
• Clarity and structure of presentation
• Appropriateness of references
• Validity of conclusions

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to strict ethical standards:

• Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
• Avoid conflicts of interest and disclose them if present
• Provide unbiased, objective, and constructive feedback
• Refrain from personal criticism of authors
• Report any suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation)

Confidentiality Policy

All submitted manuscripts are confidential documents and must not be:

• Shared with unauthorized individuals
• Used for personal research or advantage
• Stored or distributed without permission

Timeliness and Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Respond promptly to review invitations
• Complete reviews within the assigned timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)
• Notify the editorial office in case of delay or inability to review

Timely reviews ensure efficient publication workflows.

Review Quality Standards

Reviews must be:

• Constructive and evidence-based
• Clear and professional in tone
• Focused on scientific content, not authors
• Helpful in improving manuscript quality

Use of Technology and AI Tools

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts into public or unsecured AI platforms.

Any use of AI tools in the review process must not compromise:

• Confidentiality
• Integrity
• Originality of manuscript content

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline assignments if any conflict exists, including:

• Personal or professional relationships with authors
• Institutional affiliation conflicts
• Financial or competitive interests

Editorial Oversight

The editorial team ensures that:

• Review process remains fair and unbiased
• Reviewer reports are properly evaluated
• Ethical concerns are addressed according to COPE guidelines
• Final decisions are independent of external influence

Policy Compliance

This peer review policy is designed in alignment with:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review
• Scopus Journal Selection Criteria
• International best practices in scholarly publishing