Submission and basic completeness checks

Authors submit via the journal’s online process. The editorial office checks for basic completeness (required files, readable figures, and adherence to the journal’s submission requirements). The author guidance notes that the corresponding author is responsible for submission and responding to editorial queries. 

Practical tip: if essential components are missing (e.g., blinded file is not blinded, figures unreadable, ethics statement absent), the manuscript may be returned for technical correction before peer review begins.

Editorial pre-screen (scope, format, and baseline quality)

AAAI states that Editor-in-Chiefs perform an initial screening to confirm the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and is suitable for peer review, including checks for format/length, clarity of discussion, and whether research methods are adequately described. 

At this stage, an editor may decide that the manuscript is not within scope or is not ready for peer review (e.g., insufficient methods, unclear outcomes), and may return it to the authors for improvement or reject it with reasons.

Integrity screening and ethics signals

The author guidance indicates the editorial office uses plagiarism detection on manuscripts and may notify the corresponding author if concerns are detected.

Editors may also check for ethics approval/consent language for human research, animal ethics statements, clinical image de-identification, and required disclosures (conflicts of interest, funding).

If potential misconduct is suspected, the journal may pause processing and request clarification or documentation. Serious concerns may be escalated through formal channels, consistent with recognized publication-ethics practices.

Reviewer selection and invitations

After the manuscript passes initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief sends it to at least two independent reviewers chosen by the EICs.

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, independence, and the ability to provide a timely and fair review.

To protect double-blind review, reviewers should not receive author identities. Reviewers are expected to declare conflicts of interest and decline if they cannot provide an objective assessment.

Double-blind review: evaluation and recommendations

Reviewers assess validity, significance, and originality, and provide feedback to improve quality. AAAI describes reviewers as anonymous subject experts who provide expert opinion and recommendations to the handling editor, contributing to the editorial decision. 

A good review separates major issues (validity, missing methods, ethical concerns) from minor issues (clarity, formatting), and uses respectful language. Editors may redact inappropriate content before sharing reviews with authors.

Editorial synthesis and decision

The Editor-in-Chief analyzes reviewer reports and makes the final decision. AAAI lists four decision options: no modifications required, minor modifications, major modifications, or rejection. 

Editors consider reviewer reasoning, not just reviewer “votes.” If reviews conflict, the editor may seek additional review or clarify key points with reviewers.

Revision cycle (when applicable)

If revisions are requested, authors submit a revised manuscript plus a point-by-point response letter. The revision is checked against reviewer comments and editorial requirements. For major revisions, a re-review may be requested.

Best practice: authors should clearly indicate where changes were made (page/line/section references) and provide evidence when disagreeing with reviewer requests.

Final decision and next steps

After revisions and final evaluation, the editor issues a final decision. If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to production steps such as copyediting, formatting, proofs, and publication. If rejected, the author may decide to submit elsewhere or to substantially revise and resubmit as a new submission.

Note: journal policies also describe author options such as transferring a manuscript request in certain situations.