Peer Review Process

Papers submitted to Advances in Culture and Arts subject to rigorous peer review so as to ensure that the research published is ‘good science’.

Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. Although the peer review process is accelerated by the use of electronic communication, traditional, high-quality peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Papers are sent to at least two independent referees. Advances in Culture and Arts adheres to a ‘double blind’ review process: authors are not told who reviewed their paper, unless the reviewer decides to waive anonymity, and reviewers are not told who wrote the paper.

Peer reviewers are asked to give their opinion on a number of issues pertinent to the scientific and formal aspects of a paper, and to judge the papers on grounds of originality and urgency. All relevant information will be forwarded to the author(s).

For a manuscript to be published in Advanced Management Science, it must meet four criteria:

1. Originality of its contribution to the journal topics
2. Soundness of its theory and methodology
3. Coherence of its analysis
4. Ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style)

Peer reviewers will have six possible options, for each article:

1. Accept manuscript (i.e. no need for any revision)
2. Accept after revision (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested revisions)
3. Revise and resubmit (i.e. accepted or rejected after revisions have been made – paper will be sent out for another peer review round)
4. Submit elsewhere (i.e. if the manuscript is better suited for another journal)
5. Reject manuscript (i.e. if the manuscript is substandard)
6. See comments (i.e. if the reviewer cannot choose from any of the above)

In addition, papers may be rejected directly by the Chief Editor if judged to be out of scope or if scientifically of formally sub-standard.

When asking for revisions, reviewers have two possible goals: to ask authors to tighten their arguments based on existing data or to identify areas where more data are needed. Even formal revision may be required if the language or style is sub-standard. To facilitate rapid publication, authors are given a maximum of 2 weeks for revision. After 2 weeks, revised manuscripts will be considered new submissions.