PEER REVIEW PROCESS
1. First Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the AIRO journal.
This is usually via an online system such as Scholar One Manuscripts.
Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.This submission is
pertaining to the review report else the paper is again considered after the
required amendments done by the author as suggested.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The AIRO journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the
journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and
stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Appraisal by the Chief Editor (CE)
The CE checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently
original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being
reviewed any further.
4. CE Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)
AIRO journals have Associate Editors of relevant subjects who handle the peer
review so the paper will send to those Editors for further check and review.
7. Review is conducted
The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is
used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at
this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without
further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking
notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then
submitted to the AIRO journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or
else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor)
before it is reconsidered.
8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall
decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional
reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
10. Next Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to production to AIRO Journals. If the article
is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor
should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author
improve the article At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or
letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back
for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they
have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were
requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.