Independent scholarly assessment for books and chapters

Purpose and Principles of Peer Review

Peer review is an essential component of AvenSci Publishing's commitment to scientific quality, editorial independence and responsible scholarly communication. Its purpose is to provide informed and constructive expert assessment of the academic merit, relevance, coherence and reliability of proposed publications.

Review is intended to strengthen the scholarly contribution of a manuscript and support evidence-based editorial decisions. It does not constitute a guarantee that all errors, omissions or ethical concerns will be identified.

Assessments should be conducted with fairness, intellectual openness and respect for legitimate differences in scientific interpretation. Editorial decisions must reflect the quality of the work rather than the identity, institutional affiliation or personal circumstances of its contributors.

Peer Review Within the Publishing Process

AvenSci distinguishes between the preliminary editorial assessment of a publishing proposal and the scientific evaluation of a manuscript or its individual contributions.

Initial Proposal Assessment

Following submission, a proposal is examined for scientific relevance, suitability for AvenSci's publishing programme, intellectual coherence and feasibility. Additional information or an initial expert opinion may be requested.

A favourable preliminary assessment may lead to discussions about publishing conditions, contractual arrangements and manuscript development. It does not constitute final scientific acceptance of the manuscript.

Manuscript Peer Review and Revisions

Once the manuscript or relevant contributions are available, scholarly assessment is undertaken according to the publication type and the agreed editorial requirements. Authors may be asked to respond to reviewer comments, revise material or provide additional scientific information.

Further rounds of review may be necessary where substantive concerns remain unresolved.

Final Editorial Decision

Following the applicable review and revision stages, AvenSci evaluates the completed scientific assessments and revised materials before determining whether the work meets its publication requirements.

The possible outcomes include acceptance, further revision, additional assessment or rejection. A favourable proposal assessment or publishing agreement does not remove the requirement for final scientific approval.

These stages form part of AvenSci's complete From Proposal to Publication process.

Scope and Review Models

AvenSci considers different forms of scholarly material, including book proposals, research monographs, authored books, edited volumes and individual book chapters. The scope and organisation of peer review may therefore vary according to the publication type, scientific discipline and stage of editorial development.

Assessment may concern a proposal, a complete manuscript, selected representative chapters or individual contributions to an edited volume. Where appropriate, further evaluation may be requested during revision or before final acceptance.

The applicable review arrangements, including the handling of reviewer identities and reports, are determined by AvenSci for the relevant project and communicated to the participants concerned. AvenSci does not represent every publication as following an identical or automatically double-anonymous review procedure.

Editorial screening may precede external review. A submission may be declined at this stage if it falls outside the publisher's scope or does not meet basic requirements for scholarly relevance, completeness or integrity.

For conference abstracts, proceedings and other specialised publications, the nature and extent of scientific assessment must be accurately described. Editorial screening or abstract selection must not be presented as equivalent to comprehensive external manuscript peer review.

Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers should possess appropriate scientific or scholarly expertise in the subject and sufficient independence to provide a fair and informed assessment.

Selection may be informed by recommendations from Book Editors or other qualified members of the research community. AvenSci may decline a proposed reviewer where expertise, availability, independence or other relevant considerations raise concerns.

Reviewers should not accept an invitation if they lack the expertise or time needed to complete a meaningful assessment, or if circumstances could compromise their impartiality.

Where a reviewer becomes unable to complete an assessment or identifies a previously undisclosed conflict, the responsible editorial contact should be informed promptly so that appropriate arrangements can be considered.

Confidentiality and Data Protection

Unpublished manuscripts, book proposals, review reports and non-public editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential information unless the applicable review arrangements expressly provide otherwise.

Reviewers must not share submitted material with colleagues, students or other third parties without prior authorisation. They must not use unpublished findings, ideas, data or other privileged information for personal research, competitive advantage or any unauthorised purpose.

Participants should handle personal information and confidential research material in accordance with applicable data protection requirements and AvenSci's editorial instructions.

Where the agreed review model permits particular information to be disclosed, such disclosure must remain within the scope communicated to the participants. Confidentiality obligations continue after the assessment has concluded.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, personal or academic relationships that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the independence of their judgement.

Potential conflicts may include close collaboration, significant professional rivalry, financial interests, direct supervisory relationships or other connections with authors, Book Editors or the subject of the publication.

The existence of a relationship does not automatically establish misconduct or require exclusion in every circumstance. Its relevance must be assessed in light of the nature of the relationship and the review responsibilities involved.

Where a conflict threatens impartiality, AvenSci may decline or withdraw an assignment, arrange an alternative assessment or apply other appropriate safeguards. Participants should raise concerns as soon as they become aware of them.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Conduct

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, reasoned, constructive and sufficiently detailed feedback. Reports should distinguish major scientific concerns from minor editorial or presentational suggestions.

Comments should address the scholarly work rather than make personal judgements about its authors. Discriminatory language, hostile remarks, unsupported allegations and irrelevant criticism are unacceptable.

Reviewers should complete assessments within the agreed timeframe or inform the responsible editorial contact promptly when a delay is likely.

Requests for additional references must be justified by scientific relevance. Coercive citation practices, attempts to manipulate citation indicators or demands to cite unrelated work are not acceptable.

Reviewers must not delegate an assessment or disclose confidential material to another person without authorisation. Any concern involving research integrity should be reported through the editorial process rather than communicated as an unsubstantiated accusation.

Scientific Assessment Criteria

Peer review should consider the intellectual contribution of the material, its relevance to the proposed publication and the quality of the scientific reasoning supporting its claims.

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, relevant criteria may include originality or scholarly added value, accuracy of the scientific background, appropriateness of methodology, critical engagement with existing literature and consistency between evidence, interpretation and conclusions.

For research-based works, reviewers should examine methodological transparency, limitations, reproducibility-related information and the adequacy of supporting data where applicable. For review or synthesis volumes, emphasis may be placed on critical depth, balanced treatment of evidence and the value of the proposed interpretation.

In edited books, individual chapters should also be assessed for their contribution to the overall scope and coherence of the volume. Scientific disagreement is not, by itself, grounds for rejection when the work is supported by sound evidence and responsible argumentation.

Reviewers should identify matters requiring clarification or correction and, where appropriate, suggest improvements that are proportionate to the scholarly objectives of the publication.

Editorial Decisions and Recommendations

Review reports inform editorial assessment but do not mechanically determine the outcome of a submission. Reviewers provide expert opinions; they do not independently accept or reject material on behalf of AvenSci.

Book Editors may evaluate reports, coordinate scientific revisions and formulate recommendations within their assigned responsibilities. Such recommendations must take account of the evidence presented and any relevant conflicts of interest.

AvenSci retains final publisher responsibility for acceptance, rejection, requests for further evaluation and authorisation of publication.

Possible outcomes include continuation of editorial assessment, requests for minor or substantial revision, additional expert review or rejection. A favourable review does not guarantee publication, and differing reviewer recommendations may require further editorial judgement.

Editorial decisions are made independently of publication charges, commercial expectations, author royalties and the selected publishing model. Neither Gold Open Access funding nor a commercial publishing arrangement guarantees scientific acceptance.

Revisions and Further Assessment

Authors may be asked to revise manuscripts in response to scientific, methodological, ethical or presentation-related concerns identified during assessment.

Revision requests should communicate the principal issues clearly and distinguish essential requirements from optional suggestions wherever practical. Authors should address substantive comments and explain their reasoning when they do not adopt a particular recommendation.

Revised material may undergo additional assessment by the original reviewers, other qualified experts or the responsible editorial team, depending on the nature and extent of the changes.

The number and scope of revision rounds will depend on the needs of the project. Repeated revision does not create an entitlement to acceptance, and unresolved concerns may result in rejection or discontinuation of the publishing process.

Authors and Book Editors should maintain clear records of revisions and responses to substantive reviewer comments as required by the applicable editorial workflow.

Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers and editors should remain attentive to indications of plagiarism, fabricated or falsified findings, inappropriate manipulation of research material, misleading citation practices, undisclosed redundant publication and other potential breaches of scholarly integrity.

Relevant ethical concerns may involve human or animal research, informed consent, confidential or identifiable information, permissions, authorship or the responsible presentation of sensitive findings.

Suspected problems should be reported confidentially to AvenSci, with sufficient explanation to support an appropriate preliminary assessment. Review participants should avoid conducting unauthorised investigations or making public allegations.

AvenSci may seek clarification, request supporting documentation, obtain additional expert input or take other proportionate editorial measures. Concerns should be considered fairly, without presuming misconduct solely on the basis of an allegation.

Generative AI and Automated Tools

Reviewers and editors remain personally responsible for their assessments and must exercise independent scholarly judgement. Automated tools must not replace the critical evaluation of scientific evidence and arguments.

Confidential manuscripts, proposals, reviewer reports or other restricted editorial materials must not be uploaded to external generative artificial intelligence systems or automated services where doing so would breach confidentiality, intellectual property rights, data protection obligations or AvenSci's instructions.

Any use of automated tools in editorial assessment must be compatible with the applicable review arrangements and expressly authorised where required. Review participants should not assume that an external service provides adequate confidentiality merely because it is widely used.

AI-generated statements, references or analyses must be independently checked. Reviewers should not submit fabricated observations, unverified claims or automatically generated reports as substitutes for a genuine expert assessment.

Appeals, Complaints and Editorial Accountability

Authors and other relevant participants may raise concerns about procedural irregularities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate reviewer conduct or significant factual misunderstandings affecting an editorial assessment.

Concerns should be communicated to AvenSci through the available editorial correspondence or official contact channels, with a clear explanation and relevant supporting information.

AvenSci will consider substantiated concerns in relation to the circumstances of the case and may seek additional clarification or independent academic input where appropriate. A disagreement with a scientific judgement does not automatically establish grounds for changing an editorial decision.

Requests for reconsideration do not guarantee a new review or a different outcome. AvenSci retains responsibility for determining the appropriate response and communicating its final editorial position.

These principles are intended to support a fair, transparent and accountable review process while protecting the independence of scientific assessment and the integrity of scholarly publication.