What editors do at AAAI

AAAI uses a double-blind peer review model. In the journal’s described workflow, the Editor-in-Chief (and designated editors) perform an initial screening to confirm scope fit and baseline quality, then assign at least two independent reviewers, and finally make an editorial decision after evaluating reviewer reports. 

Core principles for editorial decision-making

• Merit-based decisions: Evaluate manuscripts based on scientific quality and relevance—not on authors’ geography, identity, beliefs, or institutional prestige. 
• Consistency: Apply the same standards to similar submissions and document deviations when justified.
• Transparency: Ensure journal processes and expectations are clearly communicated and followed. 
• Integrity first: Address ethics concerns promptly (plagiarism, authorship disputes, data integrity, COI, consent and approvals). 
• Confidentiality: Protect manuscript content and identities in the double-blind process. 

Initial screening

Initial screening ensures that reviewers spend time on manuscripts that are genuinely within scope and have a realistic potential to contribute to the field. The AAAI peer review description states that the Editor-in-Chief checks the overall fit, including format and length, clarity, and research methods, before reviewer assignment. 

Screening checklist

Managing double-blind peer review

AAAI describes a double-blind peer review approach and a standard decision set that includes: no modifications, minor modifications, major modifications, or rejection. Editors should manage review in a way that is fair, efficient, and evidence-driven.

Selecting reviewers

• Match expertise: Choose reviewers with direct subject-matter knowledge and appropriate methodological competence.
• Avoid conflicts: Exclude reviewers with personal, financial, or academic conflicts (recent collaborators; direct competitors with ongoing disputes).
• Diversity improves rigor: When possible, select reviewers from varied institutions and geographic settings to reduce groupthink.
• Maintain confidentiality: ICMJE notes that editors should make clear to reviewers that manuscripts and associated material are confidential. 

Guidance to reviewers

Set clear expectations: what to evaluate, how to structure feedback, how to separate “must-fix” issues from optional suggestions, and how to avoid unprofessional language. Remind reviewers that the goal is to improve scholarship, not to “win” an argument.

Handling reviewer reports

• Check usefulness: If a report is brief, non-specific, or biased, request an additional review.
• Do not outsource the decision: Reviewer recommendations inform—but do not replace—the editor’s independent judgment.
• Resolve contradictions: If reviewers disagree substantially, interpret evidence and (if needed) seek a third reviewer or statistical review.

Writing clear editorial decisions

Decision letters should be respectful, specific, and actionable. They should explain the editorial logic in plain language and point authors to the most important revisions. COPE’s editor guidance emphasizes editor accountability and appropriate editorial handling of content and processes. 

Decision templates (recommended structure)

Handling ethics and integrity issues

Ethical oversight is part of editorial work. If a concern is raised at any stage, pause the process when needed, gather information, and follow established ethics guidance. COPE provides structured editor guidance and workflows for editorial best practice, and ICMJE describes responsibilities related to confidentiality and peer review conduct. 

Common scenarios and editor actions

• Plagiarism or excessive overlap: Request explanation and revisions, or reject if severe; document the basis for action. 
• Authorship dispute: Pause review; request written confirmation from all authors; escalate to the institution if unresolved. (Editors are encouraged to implement contributorship policies.) 
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Require disclosure; consider additional review or editorial reassignment; assess whether interpretation is compromised. 
• Ethics approval/consent missing: Request documentation or reject if ethical requirements are not met; protect patient privacy.
• Image/data manipulation concerns: Request original data files and explanation; seek specialist review where appropriate. 

Special issues and guest editors

AAAI provides structured guidance for special issues: proposals should align with the journal scope, and guest editors/lead guest editors are expected to manage review and revision steps while following journal instructions and ethical standards. 

Minimum expectations for guest editors

• Scope alignment: Propose topics within AAAI scope and with genuine reader interest. 
• Review integrity: Avoid conflicts, maintain confidentiality, and ensure competent review coverage.
• Decision rationale: Accept/reject decisions must be supported with reasons (not preferences). 
• Coordination with the journal: Work closely with AAAI editorial staff and follow journal policies during review and production. 

Professional conduct and editor well-being

Editorial work can be intense. Good practice is to set boundaries, delegate appropriately, and avoid “always-on” expectations while maintaining timely handling. WAME’s editor responsibility guidance highlights respect for the journal’s constituents (readers, authors, reviewers, and human subjects) and promotes self-correction in science. 

• Be responsive, not reactive: When conflicts arise, slow down and document.
• Avoid coercive behavior: Never pressure authors to cite irrelevant work.
• Protect reviewer goodwill: Keep requests reasonable; thank reviewers; avoid repeated urgent chasing unless needed.