Peer Review Policy

Review Model

Aquatic Ecosystems and Environmental Frontiers follows a double-blind peer review process. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. Authors must prepare their manuscripts and supplementary files in a manner that supports reviewer anonymity.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether they fall within the journal’s aims and scope and meet its basic requirements for scholarly quality, originality, completeness, and ethical compliance.

The editorial team may decline manuscripts at this stage if they are outside the journal’s scope, lack a sufficient scholarly contribution, contain major methodological shortcomings, or fail to comply with the journal’s submission requirements.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are considered for external peer review by independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewer selection takes into account the manuscript’s research area, methodological requirements, and potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts and decline assignments where impartial assessment cannot be assured.

Review Criteria

• Originality and contribution to existing knowledge
• Relevance to aquatic and environmental sciences
• Clarity of research objectives and research questions
• Appropriateness of research design and methodology
• Reliability and interpretation of results
• Adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature
• Quality of presentation, organization, and scientific argument
• Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment, a manuscript may be accepted, returned for minor or major revision, or rejected. Additional review may be sought when the reports conflict or further specialist assessment is required.

The editor-in-chief retains responsibility for the final publication decision, subject to the journal’s editorial procedures and conflict-of-interest safeguards.

Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions. Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, use, or disclose unpublished manuscript material without appropriate authorization. Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, respectful, and directed toward improving scholarly quality.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance. Commercial considerations, publication fees, institutional affiliations, and personal relationships must not improperly influence editorial decisions. The journal may modify its review procedures where necessary to protect research integrity, confidentiality, and fairness.

Implementation note: publish the double-blind model only if it is consistently followed. Do not promise a fixed number of reviewers or a specific review duration unless the workflow reliably supports it.