Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Acca: Journal of Academic Culture, Curriculum, and Assessment undergo an editorial screening and peer-review process to evaluate their relevance, originality, academic quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication.

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication. Editorial and publication decisions are based on academic merit, peer-review recommendations, the quality of revisions, and compliance with the journal's policies.

1. Submission and Administrative Check

After submission, the editorial team checks whether the manuscript and its supporting information are complete.

The administrative check includes:

  • completeness of author names and affiliations;
  • accuracy of manuscript metadata;
  • availability of the title, abstract, and keywords;
  • compliance with the manuscript template;
  • compliance with the Author Guidelines;
  • completeness of declarations and supporting documents; and
  • readability and technical condition of the submitted file.

Incomplete submissions may be returned to the authors before editorial assessment begins.

2. Originality and Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts are screened using Turnitin before proceeding to the main editorial assessment.

The maximum acceptable similarity level is 30%. However, the similarity percentage is not the sole basis for determining plagiarism.

Editors evaluate the source, location, extent, distribution, pattern, and significance of matched material. Bibliographies, properly formatted direct quotations, commonly used expressions, and minor matching phrases may be excluded or interpreted contextually.

Manuscripts containing plagiarism, duplicate publication, unattributed paraphrasing, fabricated references, or manipulation of similarity results may be returned for correction or rejected.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the administrative and similarity checks undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team.

The editorial team evaluates:

  • conformity with the journal's Focus and Scope;
  • compliance with submission requirements;
  • originality and academic quality;
  • clarity of the research problem and scholarly contribution;
  • appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual foundation;
  • appropriateness and clarity of the research methodology;
  • completeness and accuracy of manuscript metadata;
  • research and publication ethics compliance;
  • quality of organization and academic language; and
  • suitability for external peer review.

A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is outside the journal's scope, does not meet basic academic standards, contains serious ethical problems, lacks a meaningful contribution, or does not comply with the submission requirements.

4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are evaluated through a double-anonymous peer-review process.

Under this process, authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities during the review process. Authors must therefore remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other identifying information from the manuscript file when required by the journal.

Reviewers are also required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, review report, unpublished data, and all information obtained through the review process.

5. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript should normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject;
  • academic qualifications and research experience;
  • publication record;
  • ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment;
  • availability to complete the review; and
  • absence of significant conflicts of interest.

The editorial team may invite additional reviewers when the initial reviews are substantially different, when specialized expertise is required, or when further evaluation is necessary.

6. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

  • relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;
  • originality and significance of the manuscript;
  • clarity of the research objectives or scholarly argument;
  • quality of the theoretical or conceptual foundation;
  • appropriateness of the research design and methodology;
  • validity and clarity of the findings;
  • quality of the analysis and discussion;
  • relationship between the findings and conclusions;
  • scholarly, institutional, policy, or practical contribution;
  • organization and quality of academic writing;
  • relevance, accuracy, and adequacy of references;
  • research and publication ethics compliance; and
  • overall readiness for publication.

Reviewers must provide objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive comments. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, and unsupported recommendations are not acceptable.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept Submission;
  • Revisions Required;
  • Resubmit for Review; or
  • Decline Submission.

Reviewer recommendations support the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

8. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the editorial decision after considering:

  • the reviewers' comments and recommendations;
  • the academic quality and originality of the manuscript;
  • the relevance of the manuscript to the journal;
  • ethical and policy compliance;
  • the quality of the authors' revisions and responses; and
  • the overall readiness of the manuscript for publication.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may assess the manuscript independently, request clarification from the reviewers, or invite an additional reviewer.

9. Revision by Authors

When revisions are requested, authors must carefully address the comments provided by the editor and reviewers.

A revised submission should include:

  • a revised manuscript;
  • a detailed response to each editorial and reviewer comment;
  • an explanation of the changes made; and
  • a scholarly justification when a recommendation has not been followed.

Authors should identify revisions clearly when requested by the editorial team. Failure to provide an adequate response may result in further revision, additional review, or rejection.

10. Reassessment of the Revised Manuscript

A revised manuscript may be:

  • evaluated directly by the editor;
  • returned to the original reviewers;
  • assigned to additional reviewers; or
  • returned to the authors for further revision.

The reassessment procedure depends on the extent of the revisions, the reviewers' recommendations, and the editor's judgment.

11. Final Acceptance

A manuscript is accepted only after the editorial team is satisfied that the manuscript:

  • meets the journal's academic standards;
  • has adequately addressed the reviewers' comments;
  • complies with research and publication ethics;
  • meets the journal's originality requirements;
  • follows the Author Guidelines; and
  • is suitable for publication.

The final acceptance decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

12. Copyediting, Layout, and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, and proofreading.

Authors may be asked to review the proof version and confirm the accuracy of author names, affiliations, text, tables, figures, references, and other publication details.

Proofreading is intended to correct production errors and minor inaccuracies. Substantial changes to the content normally cannot be made after final acceptance without editorial approval.

13. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

A reviewer or editor should withdraw from the evaluation process when a significant personal, professional, financial, institutional, supervisory, or academic relationship may influence the assessment.

14. Confidentiality

Manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, author information, and publication decisions are confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

15. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, review reports, author information, or other protected materials to publicly accessible artificial intelligence platforms.

Reviewers and editors remain personally responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and independence of their assessments and decisions.

16. Final Authority

The final authority regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, rejection, reviewer selection, and publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

Publication fees, institutional relationships, personal connections, sponsorship, or other non-academic considerations must not influence the peer-review process or editorial decision.

```