Peer Review Policy

1. Scope of this policy

Every research article published by American Impact Review is peer reviewed before publication. No research article is published on the basis of editorial assessment alone. This policy describes the review process in full: who reviews, how reviewers are selected, what is masked from whom, how decisions are reached, who makes them, and what an author may do if they disagree.

The journal is published by Global Talent Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. The policy applies to all article types and to all sections of the journal. The journal does not currently publish special issues; should it do so, special issue articles will be subject to this same policy, with external review and the same editorial oversight as regular submissions, and will be clearly labelled as special issue content.

2. What may be submitted for review

Originality and simultaneous submission. Material submitted to American Impact Review must be original and must not be published, or under consideration for publication, elsewhere. This applies for the whole period during which the manuscript is under consideration by this journal: a manuscript submitted to another journal while under review here will be withdrawn from consideration.

Related work. Authors must disclose at submission any manuscript containing similar or related work that is under consideration or in press at another journal, and must supply a copy to the editorial office. The same duty applies to related manuscripts written after submission and while review is in progress.

Preprints. The journal supports preprint archiving. Deposition of a manuscript in a recognised not-for-profit preprint repository, before or at the same time as submission, is not considered prior publication and does not disqualify a submission. Authors must disclose the preprint and supply its DOI at submission. Presentation at a conference likewise does not constitute prior publication.

Withdrawal. Authors may withdraw a manuscript at any point before a final decision by writing to the editorial office. No fee is charged for withdrawal. Where review is delayed beyond the stated timelines, authors are told the reason and may withdraw in order to submit elsewhere. A withdrawal requested after reviewers have returned their reports is recorded, out of respect for the unpaid work already done, and is taken into account if the same manuscript is later resubmitted to this journal.

3. Type of peer review

American Impact Review operates single-blind peer review. Reviewers are told the identity of the authors. The identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors, at any stage of the process or after publication.

Review reports are not published alongside articles. Reports are not signed, and reviewers are not named in the published article. The journal publishes an annual list of reviewers who have consented to be named, on the Peer Reviewers page, but that list does not indicate which manuscripts any individual reviewed.

Supplementary material submitted with a manuscript, including datasets, appendices and code, is provided to reviewers and is assessed as part of the review of the article.

Data and code. Authors must make the data, code and protocols underlying their results available at submission, for review and, where the article is published, for readers. The editorial office checks that these materials have been supplied; reviewers are asked to judge whether they are sufficient for another researcher to reproduce the work, and whether the reporting of data and methods is detailed enough to allow it. Where data cannot be shared, for reasons of confidentiality or third-party rights, the authors must say so and explain why.

4. Who conducts the review

Manuscripts are reviewed by external subject-matter experts who are not part of the journal's editorial team and who have no role in the editorial decision. Reviewers are drawn from the journal's reviewer pool, which is maintained by the Editorial Board and listed publicly with each reviewer's name, credentials, affiliation and declared areas of expertise.

Members of the Editorial Board may act as reviewers where their expertise matches the manuscript, but a Board member who reviews a manuscript takes no part in the editorial decision on that manuscript. In every case the requirement of at least two independent reviewers is met by reviewers who are independent of the decision.

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief on the recommendation of at least one member of the Editorial Board, on the basis of demonstrated expertise and a record of scholarly or professional achievement. Full appointment criteria are set out on the Peer Reviewers page.

5. Number of reviewers

Each research article is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers whose expertise matches the subject area of the manuscript. Where the two reports diverge materially in their recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief may invite one or more additional reviewers before reaching a decision.

A manuscript is never accepted on the basis of a single review. Where one reviewer identifies a fundamental methodological or ethical problem, the Editor-in-Chief may reject the manuscript without awaiting the second report; rejection, but not acceptance, may proceed on a single review.

Where reviewers disagree. A split between reviewers is resolved by the Editor-in-Chief, who reads the manuscript and weighs the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors. A decision is not a matter of counting votes, and the majority recommendation is not always followed. Where one reviewer alone opposes publication, the Editor-in-Chief may put that reviewer's objection to the others and ask whether they consider the standard applied to be unduly severe. An additional reviewer is invited where the disagreement turns on a specific question of method or subject expertise.

Specialist review. Where a manuscript turns on its statistical analysis, or on a particular technique, a reviewer is selected for knowledge of that method in addition to the subject reviewers, and is asked to address it specifically.

Where reviewers cannot be found. Where the journal is unable to secure two qualified independent reviewers, the manuscript is not published. The Editor-in-Chief either continues to seek reviewers, informing the authors of the delay and of their right to withdraw, or declines the manuscript on the ground that the journal cannot review it competently. A manuscript is never published on fewer than two independent reviews because reviewers were hard to find.

6. How reviewers are selected

Reviewers are matched to manuscripts by subject area. The journal maintains for each reviewer a declared set of expertise areas, and the Editor-in-Chief assigns manuscripts only to reviewers whose declared expertise covers the subject of the work. A reviewer who considers themselves insufficiently qualified for a given manuscript is required to decline the invitation promptly.

Before an invitation is issued, the Editor-in-Chief screens for conflicts of interest. A reviewer is not assigned to a manuscript where the reviewer shares an institutional affiliation with any author, has co-authored with any author within the preceding three years, has a financial or personal interest in the outcome, or has any other relationship that could reasonably be seen to compromise an independent assessment.

Author-recommended reviewers. Authors may suggest potential reviewers and may request the exclusion of named reviewers or editors, giving reasons. Such requests are respected so far as they do not interfere with an objective and thorough assessment of the submission. Suggestions are advisory only. The Editor-in-Chief is not bound by them, verifies the independence of any suggested reviewer before use, and ensures that suggested reviewers never constitute the whole of the review panel for a manuscript.

7. The review process, step by step

1. Submission and technical check. The editorial office confirms that the submission is complete, within scope, correctly formatted and accompanied by the required declarations of authorship, funding, ethics approval and competing interests.
2. Integrity screening. Every manuscript is screened for plagiarism and duplicate publication before review. Manuscripts showing substantial unattributed overlap with published work are returned without review.
3. Editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief assesses the manuscript for scope, originality and basic methodological soundness. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or that plainly do not meet its standards are declined at this stage without external review, and the authors are informed promptly so that they may submit elsewhere without delay.
4. Reviewer invitation. The Editor-in-Chief invites at least two independent reviewers with matching expertise, after screening for conflicts of interest as described above.
5. Review. Reviewers who accept an invitation are asked to return their report within 14 days. Reviewers complete a structured assessment form addressing originality, methodological rigor, validity of the analysis, adequacy of the literature, clarity of presentation, research ethics and contribution to the field, and provide a written recommendation with supporting argument. The editorial office follows up on late reports and keeps authors informed of any resulting delay.
6. Editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief considers the reports and issues a decision in one of the four categories below. Reviewer comments are transmitted to the authors with the decision.
7. Revision. Where revision is required, the authors resubmit with a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment.
8. Final decision and publication. The Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision. Accepted articles proceed to copyediting, typesetting, author proof and publication with a registered DOI.

8. Decision categories

Reviewers recommend, and the Editor-in-Chief decides, in the following four categories:

• Accept. The manuscript is publishable in its current form without further modification.
• Accept pending minor revisions. The manuscript is publishable once specific, limited changes are made. Revisions are verified by the Editor-in-Chief and are not normally returned to reviewers.
• Major revisions required. The manuscript addresses a question of merit but requires substantial change before it can be considered for publication. Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers.
• Reject. The manuscript will not be published. Authors are given the reasons and may appeal as set out below.

9. Revisions and further rounds

Authors submitting a revised manuscript must supply a point-by-point response addressing every reviewer comment, stating what was changed and where, or giving reasons where a change was not made.

The decision letter specifies the deadline for returning a revised manuscript: normally 30 days for minor revisions and 60 days for major revisions. Extensions are granted on request where the work requires it, and authors who need longer should tell the editorial office rather than let the deadline pass. A revision returned substantially later may be treated as a new submission.

Manuscripts returned after major revision are normally sent back to the original reviewers, who assess whether their concerns have been met. Where an original reviewer is unavailable, a replacement reviewer with equivalent expertise is invited. There is no fixed limit on the number of revision rounds; further rounds continue until the Editor-in-Chief is satisfied that the reviewers' concerns have been addressed. A manuscript that repeatedly fails to address substantive reviewer concerns may be rejected at any round.

10. Who makes the final decision

The final decision on every manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who takes it on the basis of the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses, and the manuscript's originality, rigor, clarity and relevance to the journal's scope.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief is not bound to follow them and may decide against a unanimous reviewer recommendation where there is good reason, which is recorded and communicated to the authors. Where the Editor-in-Chief is recused, the decision is taken by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief under the same terms.

11. Conflicts of interest and editorial recusal

Reviewers must decline an invitation where a conflict of interest exists, and must disclose to the editorial office any relationship that might be perceived as a conflict even where they believe it does not affect their judgment.

Editors. Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or co-author of a submission, or has any competing interest in it, they are recused entirely from the handling of that manuscript. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief assumes all editorial functions for that submission, including reviewer selection and the final decision, and the recused editor has no access to reviewer identities and no involvement in the outcome. Where both the Editor-in-Chief and the Deputy Editor-in-Chief are conflicted, an independent member of the Editorial Board is appointed as acting editor for that manuscript.

Editorial Board members and reviewers as authors. Members of the Editorial Board and reviewers listed by the journal may submit their own work. Such submissions receive no preferential treatment, are subject to this policy in full, and are handled by an editor with no connection to the author. The journal monitors the proportion of published articles authored by editors, Editorial Board members or listed reviewers and keeps it below 25 percent of articles published in any calendar year.

12. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share a manuscript, discuss its content with third parties, or use unpublished material or ideas obtained through review for their own advantage. This obligation continues after the review is complete and irrespective of the outcome.

The editorial office does not disclose information about a submission to anyone other than the corresponding author, the assigned reviewers and the editors handling it. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors at any point.

Co-review with a colleague or trainee. A reviewer must not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including a junior researcher they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the editorial office. Where permission is given, the name of everyone who contributed must be supplied with the returned report, together with any competing interests of that person, so that the contribution is recorded and credited.

13. Reviewer conduct

Reviewers accept the following obligations, which follow the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics. A reviewer must not:

• Use the work for advantage. Information or ideas obtained during review must not be used for the reviewer's own advantage or that of any other person or organization, nor to disadvantage or discredit others.
• Delay the process deliberately. A reviewer must not prolong review by withholding a report or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or the authors.
• Accept in order to see the work. A reviewer must not agree to review a manuscript merely to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a report.
• Coerce citations. Reviewers may identify relevant published work the authors have not cited, but must not suggest citations to their own work, to that of associates, or to articles in this journal, as a means of raising a citation count or the journal's visibility. Every suggested citation must rest on a valid academic reason and must demonstrably improve the manuscript.
• Review competing work. A reviewer must decline where the manuscript is closely similar to work they have in preparation or under consideration elsewhere.
• Contact the authors. A reviewer must not contact the authors of a manuscript directly, or identify themselves to them, without the permission of the editorial office.

The journal likewise deplores any attempt by authors to identify or approach their reviewers, and neither confirms nor denies speculation about who reviewed a manuscript.

Recognition. Peer review is unpaid work, and the journal considers it important that reviewers be credited for it. With the reviewer's consent, completed reviews are reported to the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, where they appear as verified records on the reviewer's researcher profile. Details are set out on the Peer Reviewers page. Consent may be given or withdrawn at any time, and a reviewer who declines is under no disadvantage.

Reports that are discourteous, superficial or persistently late are not used, and the journal ceases to invite reviewers who produce them. Allegations that a reviewer has breached these obligations are investigated by the Editor-in-Chief under the journal's misconduct procedure, and where upheld the reviewer is removed from the reviewer pool.

14. Use of automated and generative AI tools

Reviewers and editors must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, to a generative AI service, and must not use generative AI to produce a review report or an editorial decision. Manuscripts under review are confidential, and submitting them to an external service breaches that confidentiality. Limited use of language tools to improve the wording of a report the reviewer has written themselves is permitted and must be disclosed to the editorial office. The reviewer remains fully responsible for the content of the report.

Authors must disclose any use of generative AI in the preparation of a manuscript, naming the tool and describing what it was used for. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, as they cannot take responsibility for the work.

Editorial decisions are taken by named human editors. The journal does not use automated systems to accept or reject manuscripts.

15. Timelines

The journal aims to complete editorial assessment within one week of submission, and peer review within three to six weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. Across articles published in 2026, the median interval between submission and acceptance was approximately three weeks, and nine in ten manuscripts were decided within five weeks. These are observed intervals and targets, not guarantees. Where review is delayed, authors are informed of the reason and may withdraw the manuscript if they prefer to submit elsewhere.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any submission, does not offer expedited review for a fee, and does not accept payment of any kind in exchange for a favourable decision. Every published article displays its submission, acceptance and publication dates.

16. Appeals and complaints

Authors may appeal a rejection within 30 days of the decision. An appeal should be addressed to the editorial office and must set out specific grounds, responding point by point to the reviewer and editorial comments on which the decision rested. Disagreement with the outcome is not in itself a ground for appeal.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief together with a member of the Editorial Board who had no part in the original decision. Where the appeal concerns a decision taken by the Editor-in-Chief personally, it is considered by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The outcome of an appeal is final. Where an appeal is upheld, the manuscript re-enters review with newly appointed reviewers.

Complaints about the conduct of the review process, as distinct from its outcome, should be directed to the editorial office and are handled in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

17. Research integrity

Reviewers are asked to alert the editors to any ethical concern raised by a submission, including inadequate consent or protection of research subjects, inappropriate manipulation of data, redundant publication, and substantial overlap with previously published work.

Allegations of research or publication misconduct are investigated in accordance with COPE guidance, whether they arise before or after publication and whether they concern parties internal or external to the journal. Where misconduct is established, the journal will issue a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction as appropriate, and will notify the authors' institution.

18. Related policies

This policy should be read alongside the journal's Publication Ethics and Policies, which set out in full the duties of editors, reviewers and authors, the plagiarism policy, the corrections and retractions policy, research ethics requirements, data sharing and open access licensing. Reviewer appointment criteria and the current reviewer roster are on the Peer Reviewers page. The Editorial Board is listed with names and affiliations.

Last updated: September 2026