Peer Review Process
Aperture Papers uses a double-blind peer-review process in which author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout evaluation. Every manuscript passes an editorial screen, is assessed by at least two independent expert reviewers against structured criteria, and receives a transparent editorial decision — accept, revise, or reject — typically within four to six weeks of submission.
- Stage 1
Initial Editorial Screening
On submission, a handling editor checks scope, formatting, ethics declarations, and similarity-index results. Manuscripts that pass screening are advanced to peer review; those that do not are returned with a clear reason.
- Stage 2
Anonymised Reviewer Selection
The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers from the subject-matter pool. Reviewers receive a manuscript stripped of author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifying metadata. Authors and reviewers remain mutually anonymous throughout the process (double-blind).
- Stage 3
Double-Blind Review
Reviewers submit structured reports covering significance, methods, results, presentation, and ethics. Declined or unresponsive invitations trigger reassignment so that review remains continuous. Our target turnaround from assignment to first decision is 4–6 weeks.
- Stage 4
Editorial Decision
The handling editor consolidates reviewer recommendations and issues one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject. Authors receive the full anonymised reviewer reports and a clear path to resubmission where applicable.
How we keep reviews anonymous
- Author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements are stripped before sending to reviewers.
- Reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors, even after publication.
- Document metadata (file properties, track-changes history) is sanitized by the editorial office.
- Conflicting reviewers — co-authors within the last 3 years or same-institution colleagues — are excluded automatically.