Review Guidelines

The Full Peer Review consists of two phases:

Independent Review

During the Independent Review phase, the reviewers assess the manuscript independently from each other and from the authors, according to a standardized review template. These templates are adapted to each article type.

Interactive Review

During the Interactive Review phase, authors and reviewers can interact with each other through real-time comments in the discussion forum – with the aim of addressing all concerns about the manuscript. The handling Editor oversees the review process, and, if required, the Editor in Chief can also enter the Review Forum.

The following articles types undergo a full peer review:

Original Research

Review

Systematic Review

Brief Research Report

Perspective

Mini Review

Short Peer Review Guidelines

The following articles type is attributed a shortened peer review:

Editorial

Short peer reviews differ from full peer reviews in two aspects: they are directly forwarded to the Interactive Review Phase and they may be reviewed by the handling Editor alone. It is up to the Editor’s consideration if further reviewers are invited to the review process.

Therefore, following submission, an Editor of the relevant Frontiers Specialty is immediately invited to take on the manuscript editorial assignment, which encompasses the role of the reviewer, too. Since no Independent Review Report is required, the manuscript enters the Interactive Review Phase immediately.

Interactive Review, manuscript acceptance and rejection follow the same rules as for full peer reviews.

At the discretion of the Editors, the submitted manuscript may be rejected immediately after review through the Editors, without external review. Manuscripts not complying with international ethical standards will not be considered for publication and will be returned to the authors without scientific peer review.

The review process for manuscripts authored by Section Editors is made automatically inaccessible to these authors in order to safeguard the anonymity and independence of the review process.

Acta Virologica operates a single blind peer review process, whereby authors are not aware of the identities or affiliations of the reviewers, but the reviewers are able to view the authors’ identities when they make the decision to proceed with reviewing the manuscript. Usually, an article is reviewed by two independent reviewers. For accepted manuscripts, the handling editor’s and reviewers’ names are published on the final formatted article as an extra mechanism of transparency.