Double-Blind Peer Review — AATCC Review

Double-Blind Peer Review Guidelines

AATCC Review uses a double-blind peer review model to ensure impartial evaluation: reviewers do not know the authors' identities and authors do not see reviewers' identities. The sections below explain requirements for authors, expectations for reviewers and editors, and practical guidance for preparing anonymized files.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review — Overview

Double-blind review means both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other during the review process. This helps reduce bias based on author identity, affiliation, or geography, and promotes assessment based solely on the manuscript's scientific merit.

2. For Authors

Follow these rules when preparing your submission for double-blind review:

  • Do not include your name, affiliation, email ID, or other personal details in the main manuscript file.
  • The main manuscript file should contain only the title, abstract, keywords, figures, tables, and the main content.
  • Submit a separate Title Page file containing authors’ names, affiliations, corresponding author details, and the ORCID ID of the corresponding author. This file is retained by the editorial office and not shared with reviewers.
  • If you have acknowledgments or funding statements, include them on the separate Title Page — do not place these items in the main manuscript text.

3. Manuscript File & Anonymization Guidance

Practical steps to anonymize files:

  • Keep identifying information (names, affiliations, emails, funding details, and institutional logos) off the main manuscript.
  • Figures and tables must not contain references to author institutions or identifying captions.
  • Use neutral file names (e.g., manuscript.pdf, title-page.docx) and remove document metadata. Use tools like Microsoft Word's Document Inspector (Office 2007+) or equivalent to remove author metadata.
  • Only the Title Page, Cover Letter, and LaTeX source files are retained separately and are not forwarded to reviewers.

4. Self-Citation Guidance

When citing your previous work, preserve anonymity by using neutral phrasing:

  • Preferred: “Previous studies have shown…” or “Black and Hart (2015) have demonstrated…”
  • Avoid: language that reveals authorship, for example “In our earlier work…” or “We previously demonstrated (Black & Hart, 2015).”

Neutral phrasing helps reviewers judge the work on its own merits without inferring authorship.

5. For Reviewers

Reviewer responsibilities under double-blind review:

  • Maintain confidentiality: Do not attempt to discover or disclose author identities. Manuscripts and associated data must not be shared outside the review process.
  • Unbiased evaluation: Assess manuscripts solely on content, methodology, originality, and contribution. Avoid bias related to names, institutions, or countries of origin.
  • Constructive feedback: Provide professional, objective and actionable comments. Avoid mentioning or speculating about authors’ identities in reviewer reports.

6. For Editors

Editors ensure the double-blind process is upheld by:

  • Removing identifying information from manuscripts before sending them to reviewers.
  • Never disclosing reviewer identities to authors.
  • Assigning at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise and checking for conflicts of interest.
  • Making editorial decisions based on reviewers’ feedback and editorial judgment; reviewer comments are forwarded anonymously to authors to help them improve their manuscript.

7. Referenced Standards & Resources

Recommended references and resources used to shape this policy:

  • COPE – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review. publicationethics.org
  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME). DOAJ / Principles
  • Springer – Peer Review Policy & Process (publisher guidance). Springer Peer Review Policy
  • Scholastica Blog – Importance of Peer Review Policies for Open Access Journals. Scholastica Blog
  • IUCr – Ethical Publishing Policy & Confidentiality. iucr.org
  • Journal example: JCSR – Double-Blind Peer Review policy (example reference).

These sources are suggested for authors, reviewers, and editors who want deeper guidance on peer review ethics and best practices.

8. Editorial & Ethical Policies — AATCC Review

The Agriculture Association of Textile Chemical and Critical Reviews Journal (AATCC Review) is committed to high ethical standards and transparency. Core policies guiding this process include:

  • Peer Review Policy (Double-Blind): All manuscripts undergo double-blind review to ensure impartiality.
  • Publication Ethics (COPE): The journal follows COPE guidelines for ethical conduct in publishing.
  • Plagiarism & Originality: Manuscripts must be original. The journal uses similarity checking tools (e.g., iThenticate/Turnitin) prior to publication.
  • Authorship & Contribution: Authorship criteria follow ICMJE recommendations; only those making significant intellectual contributions should be listed as authors.
  • Conflict of Interest: Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Open Access & Licensing: AATCC Review follows an Open Access model; publications use CC BY 4.0 licensing (where applicable).
  • Copyright Transfer: Upon acceptance, authors sign a copyright transfer or licensing agreement as required by the journal.
  • Data Availability: Authors must state data availability and ensure reproducibility in line with best practices.

For additional authoritative references cited in our policy:
COPE: https://publicationethics.org/
ICMJE: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
CC BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/