Peer Review Policy

AMB adopts a rigorous double-anonymized peer review process to validate published articles and uphold scientific rigor. Under this framework, reviewers and authors remain anonymous during and after the review process: reviewers are unaware of authors’ identities, and authors receive no disclosure of their evaluators. This approach mitigates potential biases, ensuring manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic quality and scientific merit, excluding authors’ personal backgrounds, gender, nationality, academic status, or prior publication history.

Each article undergoes external peer review, typically assessed by at least two experts in the manuscript's subject matter and/or research methodology before a final acceptance decision.

To maintain review integrity, authors must thoroughly anonymize their manuscripts before submission by:

Removing all personally identifiable information (names, affiliations) from the main textand accompanied by a separate title page (containing authors’ names, affiliations, contact information, and other non-anonymized details as required).
Using third-person when citing own previous work (e.g., "As shown in Prior et al. (2020)..." instead of "We previously demonstrated...")
Ensuring figures, tables, and supplementary materials contain no identifying information
Excluding acknowledgments, funding statements, and conflict of interest declarations from the review version
Verifying filenames and file metadata contain no author information

Only the title page, cover letter, and LaTeX source files (if applicable) should contain identification details, submitted separately for editorial use only. All files shared with reviewers must be meticulously checked to prevent inadvertent disclosure of author identity.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is a critical step in our rigorous peer review, where candidates are chosen for domain expertise relevant to the manuscript — evidenced by their publication records, academic backgrounds, and prior review experience. Beyond domain proficiency, reviewers must demonstrate the ability to comprehensively assess the manuscript’s scientific rigor, originality, and overall quality; commit to delivering high-quality, constructive, and timely reviews while remaining responsive throughout the process; and adhere to strict standards of professionalism, confidentiality, and ethical conduct at all review stages.

In addition, the editorial team meticulously screens potential reviewers for conflicts of interest, including personal relationships, direct collaborations, financial ties, or institutional affiliations with authors. We are dedicated to maintaining a diverse, qualified reviewer pool to ensure the fair and unbiased assessment of all submissions.

4. Review Process

4.1 Submission and Initial Assessment

Upon submission, the editorial department will first conduct a plagiarism check via iThenticate and verify that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s scope and format guidelines, while assessing its originality, scientific merit, and basic quality standards.

Following these initial checks, the editor will determine whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed to peer review. If the manuscript is confirmed to meet the aforementioned criteria—including sufficient scholarly novelty, methodological soundness, and meaningful scientific contribution—and adheres to academic ethics standards, the editor will arrange for it to undergo further peer review. Conversely, manuscripts that are clearly out of scope, contain major methodological flaws, lack adequate scientific justification, or fail to comply with academic ethics may be rejected directly at this stage. This streamlined process ensures the efficiency of the review workflow and conserves valuable academic resources.

Manuscripts that pass the initial review will be assigned a unique manuscript number. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards may be returned to the authors at this stage and will not be sent for further review.

For the specific policy on preventing plagiarism, please refer to our Publishing Ethic Policy

4.2 Peer Review Process

This journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, wherein reviewers and authors remain unaware of each other’s identities. Eligible manuscripts are assigned to two or more expert reviewers with relevant subject-specific knowledge and expertise. Reviewers will evaluate the manuscript’s originality, scientific rigor, methodological soundness, significance, and clarity, and offer specific recommendations on acceptance, revision, or rejection. Upon completion of the peer review process, all reviewers’ evaluations, comments, and recommendations are collated and forwarded to the journal editor.

4.3 Editor Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and recommendations to render one of the following decisions:

Accept Submission: The manuscript will be directly sent to the final review without revisions.
Revisions Required: Revisions (minor or major) are required. Authors must address the specified issues and submit a revised manuscript, which will undergo re-review process —this process may be repeated if additional revisions are deemed necessary. Only upon passing the re-review will the manuscript proceed to the final review.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.

A detailed decision letter will be sent to the authors, including the reviewers’ feedback.

4.4 Revisions

If the editor team deem that your manuscript possesses publication potential but requires further refinement, you will be invited to submit a revised version—this must be resubmitted within the stipulated time-frame.

To complete this re-submission, the following materials are required:

Revised Manuscript: Incorporate all necessary amendments based on the comments from the reviewers and the editor. Ensure all changes are clearly marked or annotated in the document to facilitate easy identification.

Response Letter: Prepare a detailed response letter that addresses every comment raised by the reviewers and the editor. For each point, clearly explain the modifications made to the manuscript in response.

Upon re-submission, the revised manuscript is typically reassigned to the original reviewer. The editor may then make a decision based on their assessment of your revisions and response letter.

4.5 Final Decision

After all revisions have been satisfactorily addressed, the editor makes a final decision on the manuscript’s acceptance.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and production.

4.6 Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial rejection decision have the right to initiate an appeal process. To do so, authors must submit a formal appeal letter that clearly outlines the specific grounds for their objection, supported by relevant evidence or detailed reasoning justifying a re-evaluation. The appeal must be submitted in writing to EEEE with the word "Appeal" included in the subject line. Appeals submitted via phone or other informal channels, or directed to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, will not be accepted.

4.6.1 ‌Grounds for Consideration‌

An appeal will only be considered under the following circumstances:

The reviewer(s) or editor(s) are deemed to have made a significant factual errorin evaluating the manuscript.
The objectivity of the reviewer(s) or editor(s) may have been compromised by a ‌documented conflict of interest.

If either of these grounds is substantiated, the original decision may be overturned.

4.6.2 Appeal Review Process‌

Upon receipt, the appeal case will be assigned to a senior editor or an independent advisor who was not involved in the original decision. The assigned individual will conduct a thorough review, assessing the fairness and rationale of the prior review process and editorial judgment, and determining whether the issues raised warrant reversal of the original decision.

4.6.3 ‌Grounds for Immediate Rejection‌

Cultech reserves the right to reject an appeal without further review if:

The rejection was based on ‌integrity concerns‌ (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).
The case involves ‌multiple submissions or articles‌.
The appeal, in Cultech’s judgment, fails to adequately address the substantive issues underlying the editorial decision.

‌The decision on the appeal is final and without exception.

4.7 Production

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, it enters the production phase.

5. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and correspondence are treated as confidential.

Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or discussing manuscripts with anyone outside the review process.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if a conflict exists.

Editors will ensure that the peer-review process remains unbiased and impartial.

7. Appeals and Re-reviews

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed justification. Appeals will be reviewed by a senior editor or additional reviewers.

Revised manuscripts may be subjected to re-review by the original or new reviewers.

8. Ethical Standards

AMB adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for ethical peer-review practices.

Any ethical concerns raised during peer review, such as plagiarism or data manipulation, will be investigated thoroughly.

9. Transparency and Accountability

AMB maintains detailed records of the peer-review process for all manuscripts.

Editors and reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive and respectful feedback to authors.

By adhering to this peer-review policy, AMB ensures the publication of high-quality and ethically sound research that advances scientific knowledge.

10. Artificial intelligence(AI)

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in scientific publishing. Through their professional evaluations and recommendations, they guide editorial decisions to ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily based on their in-depth understanding of the subject matter or methodologies involved in the work being assessed - an expertise that is invaluable and irreplaceable. Reviewers are accountable for the accuracy of their reports and the perspectives they present, with the peer-review process operating on principles of mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors.

While generative AI tools are advancing rapidly, they still have significant limitations. They may lack the most current knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Additionally, manuscripts may contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared beyond the peer-review process. For these reasons, AMB does not permit the use of large language models and other generative AI tools.

Peer Review Policy

1. Publishing Standards and Guidelines

2. Type of Peer Review