Asean Vascular and Wound Research uses a double-anonymized peer review process to ensure an objective, fair, and independent evaluation of submitted manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the peer-review process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether the manuscript:

• Falls within the scope of Asean Vascular and Wound Research.
• Meets the journal's basic requirements for manuscript preparation and submission.
• Presents sufficient scientific quality and originality.
• Complies with the journal's publication ethics requirements.
• Contains the necessary ethical approval and informed consent statements, where applicable.
• Is free from obvious plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are outside the journal's scope may be rejected without being sent for external peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to qualified reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

The editor selects reviewers based on their academic expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment.

Reviewers should not be selected if there is a potential conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or research described in the manuscript.

3. Double-Anonymized Review

Asean Vascular and Wound Research applies a double-anonymized peer-review process. The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Authors should therefore ensure that the submitted manuscript does not contain information that unnecessarily identifies them or their institutions in the main manuscript file.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of the manuscript under review.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and independently.
• Assess the scientific quality, originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and relevance of the manuscript.
• Identify ethical concerns and potential research or publication misconduct.
• Provide constructive, clear, and professional comments that can help authors improve their manuscript.
• Maintain the confidentiality of all information contained in the manuscript.
• Declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.
• Complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
• Inform the editor promptly if they are unable to complete the review.
• Avoid using or sharing unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should not recommend citations solely to increase their own citation counts or those of their colleagues, journals, or institutions.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to assess the following aspects:

1. Originality and significance
   Whether the manuscript presents original findings or meaningful insights that are relevant to the field.
2. Scientific quality
   Whether the research question is clearly defined and appropriately addressed.
3. Methodology
   Whether the study design, methods, participants, interventions, measurements, and procedures are appropriate and adequately described.
4. Statistical analysis
   Whether the statistical methods are appropriate and the results are presented and interpreted correctly.
5. Results
   Whether the results are clearly presented and adequately support the conclusions.
6. Discussion and conclusions
   Whether the findings are appropriately interpreted in relation to previous research and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence.
7. Ethical considerations
   Whether the study complies with applicable ethical requirements, including ethics approval and informed consent where applicable.
8. References
   Whether the references are relevant, appropriate, and sufficiently up to date.
9. Presentation and clarity
   Whether the manuscript is clearly written, logically organized, and presented according to the journal's requirements.

6. Reviewer Recommendation

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial changes.
• Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision can be made.
• Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered further.
• Reject – The manuscript does not meet the scientific, ethical, methodological, or editorial standards of the journal.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final publication decision is made by the editor.

7. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' comments and the editor's independent assessment, the editor will make the final decision regarding the manuscript.

The possible editorial decisions are:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Editors may seek additional peer reviews when reviewers provide substantially different recommendations or when further expert assessment is required.

The editor may also reject a manuscript despite favorable reviewer recommendations if the manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, or editorial standards.

8. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

• A revised version of the manuscript; and
• A detailed response to all reviewer comments.

Authors should clearly indicate how each comment has been addressed. If the authors disagree with a reviewer's recommendation, they should provide a clear and scientifically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to Asean Vascular and Wound Research are treated as confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than those directly involved in the editorial and peer-review process.

Reviewers must not share, copy, use, or distribute any part of a manuscript or its unpublished findings without permission from the editor and the authors.

10. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a manuscript for review.

A reviewer should decline an assignment when a conflict of interest could compromise, or could reasonably be perceived to compromise, the objectivity of the review.

Examples of potential conflicts include:

• Personal or professional relationships with the authors.
• Collaboration with one or more authors.
• Competition or direct professional rivalry.
• Financial interests related to the research.
• Institutional or other relationships that could influence the review.

11. Ethical Concerns and Research Misconduct

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, unethical research practices, or other forms of misconduct, the concern should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers should not directly contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct.

The editorial team will investigate such concerns in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy and relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

12. Timeliness

Asean Vascular and Wound Research is committed to conducting peer review in a timely manner while maintaining the quality and integrity of the review process.

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the timeframe specified by the editorial office. If a reviewer requires additional time, they should inform the editor as soon as possible.

13. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made based on a significant misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural issue may submit an appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation addressing the specific grounds for the appeal. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the scientific judgment of the reviewers may not result in reconsideration.

The editor's decision following an appeal is final.

14. Post-Publication Review

Peer review does not end the journal's responsibility for the integrity of published research. Readers, authors, and other members of the scientific community may raise concerns about published articles.

When credible concerns are received, the editorial team will assess them and may take appropriate action, including issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, when warranted.

Asean Vascular and Wound Research is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, confidential, and rigorous peer-review process that supports the integrity and quality of the scientific literature.