top of page

For Authors

Click to Download a Manuscript Template for Submission

AQIE Publications manuscript  submission: 

Submit your manuscript to editor@aqie.org as a word file

 

Manuscript Submission & Guide for Authors


Article Types
Article
These are the most common article type and are often original research manuscripts. They are always peer reviewed. The structure includes an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections.
 
Review
Reviews provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are always peer reviewed. The structure includes an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Perspective.
 
Communication
Communications are short articles that present groundbreaking preliminary results or significant findings that are part of a larger study over multiple years. They are always peer reviewed. They can also include cutting-edge methods or experiments, and the development of new technology or materials. The structure is similar to an article.
 
Editorial
An editorial is a short article describing news about the journal or opinions of Editors or the publisher.
 
Perspective
Perspectives are usually an invited type of article that showcase current developments in a specific field. Emphasis is placed on future directions of the field and on the personal assessment of the author. Comments should be situated in the context of existing literature from the previous 3 years. The structure is similar to a review. They are peer reviewed.
 
Opinion
Opinions are short articles that reflect the author's viewpoints on a particular subject, technique, or recent findings. They should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the topic presented in the opinion. The structure is similar to a review; however, they are significantly shorter and focused on the author's view rather than a comprehensive, critical review.
 
Commentary
A Commentary is to provide comments on a newly published article or an alternative viewpoint on a certain topic. They are peer reviewed.
 
Book Review
Book reviews are short literary criticisms analyzing the content, style, and merit of a recently published book. Full book details should be provided at the beginning of the article. The structure should only include an Introduction and be a discussion of critical points with no sections or conclusions.
 
Case Report
Case reports focus on a topic as it relates to a single patient case. The cases are often unusual or noteworthy, typically a classic presentation of a very rare disease or an unusual presentation of a more common disease. Other cases, such as an unusual disease course or a rare complication of a procedure might also be included. They are peer reviewed. The structure of case reports differs from articles and includes an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Detailed Case Description, Discussion, and Conclusions.
 
Conference Report
Conference reports are records of the events of a conference, seminar, or meeting. They should provide a comprehensive overview of a meeting or session, along with relevant background information for the reader. The structure should contain Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Conference Sections, and Concluding Remarks. They can also include all accepted meeting abstracts.
 
Letter to the Editor
A Letter to Editor is usually an open post-publication review of a paper from its readers, often critical of some aspect of a published paper. Controversial papers often attract numerous Letters to Editor. They are peer reviewed.
 
Systematic Review
A Systematic Review collects and critically analyzes multiple research studies, using methods selected before one or more research questions are formulated, and then finding and analyzing related studies and answering those questions in a structured methodology. They are peer reviewed.
 
Meta-Analysis
A Meta-Analysis is a statistical analysis combining the results of multiple scientific studies. It is often an overview of clinical trials. They are peer reviewed. The structure  is similar to an article.
 
Technical Note
A Technical Note is a short article giving a brief description of a specific development, technique or procedure, or it may describe a modification of an existing technique, procedure or device applied in research. They are peer reviewed. The structure is similar to an article.

Research Highlight
A Research Highlight is to highlight one or more exciting research article or clinical trial, recently published in any journal, and to place the new findings into the context of the current literature.

General Peer-review and Editorial Procedure
This journal operates a single anonymized review process. All submissions will be initially assessed by editors for suitability for the journal. Submissions deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript. The Academic Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Academic Editor's decision is final.

Editors are not involved in decisions about papers that they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of other editors.

Editorial Decision and Revision
All the manuscripts published in AQIE Publications journals go through rigorous peer review and will receive a minimum of two review reports. The Academic Editor will give his/her decision at every step to the authors regarding the following:

  • Accept: The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript can be accepted after addressing all the revisions provided by the reviewers.

  • Major Revision: It depends on the revised version whether the manuscript could be accepted or not. Usually, the revised version will be re-checked by the reviewers.

  • Reject and Encourage Resubmission: The manuscript is rejected due to the lack of additional experiments which supports the conclusions, and resubmission will be encouraged once the authors complete the further experiments.

  • Reject: The manuscript has serious flaws, and/or is lack of novelty or significant contribution.

Production and Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript will go through the production procedure including copy-editing, English editing, proofreading, final corrections, conversion, and finally publishing on the website.
 

For Reviewers

We sincerely thank all of the reviewers who contribute their time and expertise to evaluate the manuscripts submitted to AQIE Publications journals, and ultimately, help advance scientific communication and open access research.
 
Criteria for Publication
AQIE Publications journals welcome manuscripts with a specialized focus, as well as feasibility studies and negative results. A manuscript for acceptance must be:

  • scientifically and technically sound;

  • with appropriate methodology and presentation;

  • Providing adequate data support for conclusions.

Model of Peer Review
AQIE Publications journals operate a rigorous and thorough single-anonymous peer review, which means the editors and reviewers have access to the identities of the authors, but the identities of the editors and reviewers are not revealed to the authors. For more details about peer review process, please refer to peer review policy.
 
Benefits of Reviewers

  • A reviewer recognition certificate is provided at request;

  • Excellent reviewers have the chance to be promoted to Reviewer Board Members through the approval by the Editor(s)-in-Chief;

  • Reviewers may create a profile on Publons and have their reviewing activity automatically added for participating journals. Profiles on Publons can also be integrated with ORCID.

Responsibility of Reviewers

  • Consider becoming reviewers as a part of your professional responsibilities, while you benefit from the peer review process as authors.

  • Declare all potential competing or conflicting interests with all co-authors of the work before start your review. You should not agree to review, in situations where any of the co-authors and you are in the same institution, or have been collaborated within the past five years. Please contact Editorial Office if you are unsure about a potential competing interest that may prevent you from reviewing.

  • Respond to a review invitation in a timely manner, agree or not. You may agree to review only if you feel qualified and ensure that you can return the review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame. In cases where you need more time to finish the review, inform Editorial Office of an extension. You are welcome to recommend other potential reviewers who are relevant with this manuscript;

  • Follow the confidentiality of the peer review process as well as the information about the manuscript and co-authors;

  • Report to Editorial Office in case any potential research or publication misconduct occur, like plagiarism or research ethics violations, etc.

  • Keep your review objective and constructive to help the authors to improve their manuscript, avoid being hostile or inflammatory;

  • Provide fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript during the peer review process.

Misconduct of Reviewers
Regarding fake or frauded information participated in peer review, AQIE Publications journals seriously take related issues following the editorial COPE released guidance Inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes.

AI Use of Reviewers
Reviewers should not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

Invitation to Review
When Reviewers are invited to assess manuscripts submitted to AQIE Publications Journals, they are asked to address the following points:

  • accept or decline any invitations quickly, based on the manuscript title and abstract;

  • recommend alternative reviewers when declining an invitation;

  • request an extension when requiring more time to complete a report;

When Reviewers agree to assess manuscripts submitted to AQIE Publications Journals, they are asked to check the following points:

  • If the results are original, timely, and significantly advance the knowledge.

  • If the background information is thoroughly described.

  • If the sufficient data and rigorous analysis are presented.

  • If the manuscript has impact on the relevant scientific communities.

  • If the manuscript is written in proper English and well organized.

  • If the figures are necessary, adequate, well-presented, and clearly labeled.

  • If the reference list has inappropriate self-citations.

Usually, there are two rounds of peer reviewing work for our reviewers before the final decision step:

The first round of peer review: Reviewers are invited to review the original manuscript and provide a review report as detailed as possible. We encourage reviewers to provide all the revision comments at this step.

The second round of peer review: Once the manuscript is revised and resubmitted, the reviewers would be invited again to check if the manuscript has improved enough based on the first round of review comments. 

It would be seldom for reviewers to be invited for the third round of peer review. However, this would happen if the manuscript is not revised thoroughly while reviewers would like to read the revised version again.

Rating Standards of Peer Review
During the peer review process, reviewers are expected to rate the following aspects:

  • Novelty: Is the manuscript novelty enough?

  • Scientific Soundness: Is the manuscript scientifically sound and not misleading?

  • Quality: Does the manuscript give a concise and comprehensive view of the topic?

  • Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the journal?

  • Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work?

Review reports should include:

  • A brief summary (one short paragraph): outlining the aim of the paper and its main contributions.

  • Broad comments highlighting areas of strength and weakness. Comments regarding deficiencies in the submitted work should be constructive and their judgment explained specifically enough so authors are able to respond and improve their article. The comments should be listed one by one clearly (preferably numbered).

  • Concluding comments summarizing reviewers' final recommendation and explain the reason to Editor only, but not to author.

Note that if the review report does not meet our quality standards, you may be asked to revise the report, or the report may be discarded.
 
Overall Recommendation
Reviewers are expected to provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows (do not include this recommendation in the comments to the authors):

  • Accept in Present Form: The paper is accepted without any further changes.

  • Accept after Minor Revision: The manuscript is in principle accepted after a slight revision based on the reviewer's comments.

  • Reconsider after Major Revision: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The manuscript would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, or rewriting sections, or widening of the literature review, etc. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer's comments cannot be revised.

  • Reject: The manuscript has serious flaws in data or experimental design or makes no original contribution, etc. The manuscript is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal Editors, not to the authors.

For Editors

Editors, including Editors-in-Chief, associate editors, editorial board members, and guest editors, are expected to maintain and develop the journal's profile and reputation wherever possible. Editors should ensure that the journal's aims&scope and publication respond to any changes of direction in the field of study to incorporate newly-emerging work. Editors will work closely with the journal's Editorial Office to ensure that it is strategically developed in line with market evolution. Both Editors and Editorial Office will make recommendations in this regard, based on Editors’ expertise and sources of information.
 
Benefits of Editors

  • Receive a two-year term recognition certificate

  • Recognition on the journal website

  • Publish papers free of charge

  • Increase your knowledge and standing in your research field

Criteria for Editors

  • Recognition as an authoritative and prominent scholar or academic leader within a specific discipline

  • Strong commitment to journal work and a sense of responsibility

  • Spotless academic record and a strong reputation for academic ethics

 

Role of Editors will be sent directly to the individuals.

Editorial Board Members

  • Review 3-5 manuscripts per year

  • Make decisions for manuscripts

  • Contribute/Invite contributions

  • Suggest topics for Special Issues

  • Promote the journal among their peers or at conferences

Guest Editors

  • Edit a Special Issue on a certain topic

  • Invite potential contributors in this topic field

  • Take decisions on new submissions in their Special Issue

Special Issues
Special Issues (SIs) are topic-themed collections of papers focusing on specific subject area of the journal and edited by Guest Editors who are solicited or propose. A Special Issue is not an issue of the journal. These Guest Editors typically invite or commission submissions to the special issue and oversee the peer review process.

All submissions that meet the journal's criteria for peer review will undergo the journal's standard peer review process. If any conflicts of interest arise between the Guest Editor and authors, other editors from Editorial Board will be assigned to handle them to ensure the evaluation of these submissions is objective.

bottom of page