All papers, including those invited by the editor, are subject to peer review. Archives of Pediatric Critical Care (APCC) has adopted a double-blind peer review policy, where the author identities remain anonymous to the reviewers, and vice versa and the identities of the reviewers and authors are visible to (decision-making) the editor throughout the peer review process. The Editorial Board selects reviewers based on expertise, publication history, and past reviews. During the peer review process, reviewers can interact directly or exchange information (e.g., via submission systems or email) with only an editor, which is known as “independent review.” An initial decision will normally be made within 2 weeks after the reviewers agree to review a manuscript. No information about the review process or editorial decision process is published on the article page.
All manuscripts from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board are processed in the same way as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters will not engage in the selection of reviewers or the decision process. Editors will not handle their manuscripts even if the manuscripts are commissioned. The conflict of interest declaration should be added as follows.
Conflicts of Interest: OOO has been an editorial board member of Archives of Pediatric Critical Care since OOO but has no role in the decision to publish this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

1) Adoption of peer review
If the manuscript does not fit the aims and scope of the Journal or does not adhere to the Instructions for Authors, it may be returned to the author immediately after receipt and without a review. Before reviewing, all submitted manuscripts are inspected through a Similarity Check powered by iThenticate, a plagiarism-screening tool. If too high a degree of similarity is found, the Editorial Board will conduct a more detailed content screening.

2) Peer-review methods
APCC uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer’s and author’s identities are concealed throughout the review process. Screening before the review period typically lasts 1 week. The first decision is usually made within 4 weeks after completion of the review. The Editorial Board’s decision after the review will be one of following: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, or Rejection. The Editorial Board may request that the authors revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. The authors should do their best to revise the manuscript according to such requests. If the reviewer's opinion is not acceptable or deemed possible to misinterpret data, the author should reasonably indicate this issue. After revising the manuscript, the author should upload the revised files with a reply to each item of the reviewer's commentary. The author's revisions should be completed within 30 days after the request. If the revised manuscript is not received by the due date, the Editorial Board will notify the author. For an extension of the revision period beyond 30 days, the author should negotiate with the Editorial Board. The manuscript review process can be provided for up two rounds. However, the Editorial Board may consider further reviews according to the reviewers’ wishes. The Editorial Board will make a final decision on the approval of the submitted manuscript for publication and can request further corrections, revisions, and deletions of the article’s text if necessary. Statistical editing is also performed if the data requires professional statistical review by a statistician.