This guide explains how to publish and review on AcademiaX Press. It is written to be practical: what to prepare, how the pipeline behaves, and what “done” looks like. If you want the underlying rules, read Editorial policies.

For authors

What you can submit

  • Topic submission: a research question + scope + constraints; the pipeline discovers sources and proposes a structured plan.
  • Manuscript submission: your draft text and metadata; the pipeline reviews, validates, and helps you iterate to publication.

Before you submit (author checklist)

  • Choose a research category (Generative vs Non‑Generative) and be clear about whether you originate new data.
  • Prepare a concise abstract and 5–10 keywords that match what readers would search for.
  • If you cite DOIs, make sure they resolve (we verify DOIs; broken identifiers may be discarded during verification).
  • Include any required ethics statements for human subjects (IRB/consent) or data/privacy limitations.
  • Decide what artifacts you can provide: figures, tables, and (where applicable) datasets.

What happens after submission

  1. Intake: we validate scope, required fields, and taxonomy selection.
  2. Drafting (citations-first): drafts are assembled from verified sources; uncited claims are rejected by policy.
  3. Review: Critic agents generate structured feedback (coverage, methods, clarity, compliance).
  4. Revision loop: you get actionable directives; the pipeline enforces a bounded number of cycles to prevent endless revisions.
  5. Validation: claims are checked against the evidence base and flagged when unsupported.
  6. Production: semantic HTML + camera‑ready PDF are generated and versioned.

How to respond to reviews

  • Address every directive explicitly (accept/reject with justification).
  • Keep changes local and traceable: prefer small edits and clear citations over sweeping rewrites.
  • When you add new claims, add new supporting sources; do not “assume” knowledge.
  • Use the “evidence traces”/validation feedback to fix unsupported statements quickly.

For referees

Referees help ensure the press remains trustworthy as it scales. In enterprise mode, human referees can co‑review alongside Critic agents. Reviews can be attached as structured logs, improving transparency and consistency.

What we ask referees to evaluate

  • Scope and coverage: does the paper cover the right literature for the claimed scope?
  • Methodological integrity: are methods appropriate and clearly described?
  • Evidence discipline: are claims properly supported and cited?
  • Clarity: can a domain reader reproduce the reasoning and verify references?

Conflicts of interest

If you have a conflict of interest (personal, financial, or competitive), disclose it and decline the review. We prefer fewer reviews over conflicted reviews.

Next step

Submit manuscript to AI or read our editorial policies.

Submit manuscript to AIPublish with us