Duties of Editor-in-Chief (EIC):

1. Fair Play
   Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. The policies of governments or other agencies outside the journal itself do not determine decisions to edit and publish. The editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
2. Confidentiality
   The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
   The Editors will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used to their advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
4. Publication Decisions
   The editors of IJACE ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Management of unethical behaviors
   The editors and the publisher should take rationally responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented regarding a submitted manuscript or published article. Every reported unethical publishing behavior will be considered, even if discovered years after publication.

The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to IJACE. Submission is carried out through the OJS system.

The Editorial Office checks the paper’s composition and organization against the journal’s Author Guidelines to ensure it includes all required sections and formatting. The quality of the paper is not evaluated at this stage.

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

Editor-in-Chief (EIC) appoints Associate Editors (AE) to manage the peer review process. An Associate Editor will be assigned at this stage to oversee the manuscript evaluation.

The role of the AE is to:

• Receive manuscript assignments from the EIC
• Perform initial manuscript assessment
• Select and invite reviewers
• Monitor the peer review process
• Evaluate reviewer reports
• Provide recommendations to the EIC
• Communicate reviewer comments to authors
• Enforce journal policies

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she considers appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, additional invitations may be issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained, commonly two. If the comments or recommendations of the two reviewers significantly contradict each other, a third reviewer will be appointed to provide an additional independent evaluation and to ensure a fair and balanced assessment.

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the IJACE, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

Utilization of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies within the journal editorial process must adhere to strict confidentiality standards. A submitted manuscript is to be regarded as a confidential document. Editors are advised against uploading the manuscript or any part thereof into a generative AI tool, as such actions may infringe upon the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights. If the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, this may also constitute a breach of data privacy rights.

The editor has the right to perform a similarity check on submitted manuscripts using Turnitin to assess the originality of the work. The maximum allowed similarity percentage is 10%. If the similarity exceeds this threshold, authors will be asked to provide clarification or revise their manuscript according to the journal’s guidelines.

Submitted manuscripts will be evaluated for language quality using Grammarly. The minimum acceptable grammar score is 90. Manuscripts scoring below this threshold may be returned to the authors for language revision before further consideration.

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.