After the initial editorial assessment, manuscripts that meet the journal’s basic requirements are sent for peer review. Acarological Studies uses a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. The journal prioritizes external reviewers who are independent of the journal’s editorial team. Members of the editorial board may occasionally be invited to provide an additional expert assessment when their specific expertise is required; however, editorial board members do not replace the required independent external reviewers.

Reviewer selection is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the relevant section editor. Reviewers are selected according to the subject of the manuscript, research methodology, relevant expertise and experience, and availability. Reviewers are expected to declare any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an invitation.

The purpose of peer review is to provide an independent and expert assessment that supports the editorial decision. After considering the reviewers’ reports, the editor may decide to accept the manuscript, request a minor revision, request a major revision, or reject the manuscript. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers when further expert assessment is considered necessary.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, confidentially and constructively and to follow the journal’s ethical and peer review standards. Reviewers must follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

For detailed information on reviewers’ responsibilities, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, ethical issues, artificial intelligence in peer review and other publication-related matters, please consult the journal’s Ethical Principles and Publication Policy.