Experts who evaluate manuscripts for American Impact Review.
Invitation OnlyPeer-ReviewedCOPE Principles
About Our Reviewers
Every research article published by American Impact Review is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are external to the editorial team and take no part in the editorial decision on the manuscripts they assess. The full process is set out in the Peer Review Policy.
Reviewers serve by invitation of the Editorial Board. Appointments are made on the basis of demonstrated subject expertise and a record of research or applied work in the relevant field, evidenced by publications, patents, or equivalent contributions. Scholars and practitioners who wish to be considered may express their interest and share their areas of expertise; consideration does not guarantee an invitation, as the editorial team retains the final decision on appointments.
Each reviewer is formally appointed by the Editor-in-Chief following a recommendation from at least one member of the Editorial Board. Upon appointment, the reviewer receives an official invitation letter specifying the scope of their reviewing responsibilities, the field or fields in which they are qualified to evaluate submissions, and the journal's expectations regarding review quality, confidentiality, and turnaround time.
Reviewers assess each manuscript independently of one another, without knowledge of the other reviewer's report, using a structured assessment form that addresses originality, methodological rigor, validity of the analysis, adequacy of the literature, clarity of presentation, research ethics, sufficiency of the underlying data, and contribution to the field. Each completed review constitutes an independent expert judgment of the submitted work, and the Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision on the basis of all reports received. All reviewers adhere to our Publication Ethics guidelines, the Peer Review Policy, and the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Reviewer Selection Criteria
The Editorial Board evaluates prospective reviewers against the following requirements before extending a formal invitation:
A minimum of three peer-reviewed publications, or equivalent professional accomplishment such as patents, industry leadership, or recognized expertise in the relevant field
Active engagement in research, scholarship, or professional practice at the time of appointment
Demonstrated subject-matter expertise in one or more disciplines within the journal's multidisciplinary scope
No conflicts of interest with the manuscripts assigned for review
Commitment to providing timely, constructive, and confidential peer review in accordance with COPE guidelines
Review Process
Manuscripts submitted to American Impact Review undergo single-blind peer review. The Editor-in-Chief assigns each submission to at least two independent reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers independently assess the work using a structured evaluation form and provide a written recommendation (accept, revise, or reject) along with detailed feedback to the authors. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' assessments.
The process is set out in full, including reviewer selection, decision categories, revision rounds, conflicts of interest, appeals and the journal's policy on automated tools, in the Peer Review Policy.
Reviewer Recognition
Reviews completed for this journal are reported, with your consent, to the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, where they appear as verified records on your researcher profile alongside your reviews for other journals, and may be recorded on your ORCID profile. Verification is performed by Clarivate on the basis of our confirmation, not by self-reporting. A public profile shows only the journal name and the number of verified reviews, never the manuscript title or the content of your review.