Peer Review Process

Avar follows a double-blind peer review policy. All submitted manuscripts are read by our editorial staff. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are desk rejected without external review. Accepted articles are screened by an editorial board member and, if deemed appropriate, sent to two reviewers. Finally, in the light of reviewer comments, the editorial team reaches a decision about publication. This decision is final. All forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors. 

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Our editors evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by reviewers and by the authors, and may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the academic community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration. Reviewers' criticisms are taken seriously, particularly the technical criticisms.

Avar follows the rules of publication ethics to ensure academic objectivity and rigour of the journal.