"We are appreciative to the scholars who volunteer their time to peer-review manuscripts submitted to AMRJ. Peer review is the cornerstone of developing high-quality publishing standards."
-------- ARMJ Editorial Team

Editorial Process and Peer Review

All submissions to our journal are rigorously and impartially peer-reviewed by professionals. The manuscript will undergo an initial review by the journal's managing editor right away after submission. A suitable academic editor will be contacted, invited to assess the manuscript, and asked to suggest reviewers. Academic editors have the authority to decide whether to ask for amendments prior to peer review, reject a submission, or continue with the peer review process. The editorial officer will coordinate the peer review, which is carried out by impartial experts, and gather a minimum of two review reports for each submission in the event that the peer review procedure is continued. Before making a judgment, we ask authors for enough modifications. An academic editor (often the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Member of a journal) makes the final decision on the fate of manuscript. The approved manuscripts are subjected to internal copy- and English-editing.

Profile and Responsibilities of Reviewers

The reviewer's role is crucial and entails a great deal of responsibility for maintaining the accuracy of the academic record. Every reviewer is required to conduct manuscript analysis in a timely, open, and morally responsible manner. The reviewers need to fulfill the following requirements:

• Have no conflicts of interest with any of the contributors.
• Have an MS/MPhil/PhD or an equivalent degree.
• Have relevant experience and a documented publication record in the field of the submitted paper.
• Maintains a legitimate academic affiliation.

Benefits to Reviewers

AMRJ team strives diligently to honor the contributions of each of our reviewers.

Reviewing for AMRJ provides the following advantages:

• The reviewers are presented with a customized reviewer certificate.
• Outstanding reviewers could be elevated to Reviewer Board Members (subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief).
• Reviewers can register for research systems like ORCID and have their reviewing activities for participating publications incorporated automatically.

Reports and Recommendations from Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to include a recommendation in their report. You are urged to take into account how well the manuscript fits with the goals and scope of the journal when making a recommendation. The manuscript's research and science should be the focus of discussion rather than formatting issues, which will be addressed by our production editor.

What should be evaluated in the reviewer's report?

• The significance of the publication in light of previous research on the topic. The reviewers must consider how the presented findings may affect the field and the scope of the scientific community.
• The novelty in comparison to previously published research in this field. One can categorize the level of novelty as remarkable, high, moderate, marginal, or low.
• If the procedures, information, and analysis sufficiently validate the hypothesis and back up the conclusions. The hypothesis must be validated, and the key findings must be supported by a sensible methodological choice, adequate data quality, and thorough analysis.
• If the procedures, information, and analysis are sufficiently detailed for the scientific community to replicate them.
• If there are any technical errors, missing data, or inadequate experimental and theoretical details.
• Any ethical issues with the paper, such as plagiarism, alteration of the images or data, conflicts of interest, etc.
• Academic presentation enhancements, such as:
• The published findings' relevance is clear and explicit.
• The grammar and usage of the language are appropriate.
• The article's writing style is appropriate for a scientific journal.
• The manuscript is organized logically.
• The charts, diagrams, and tables are pertinent, high-quality, and well labeled.
• The reference list is appropriate and properly acknowledges published literature.
• Other areas require more development.

Overall Recommendation

Reviewers are required to make the following general recommendations for the manuscript's further processing stage:

Accept in Present Form: The paper can be accepted as it is, with no more revisions necessary.

Accept after Minor Changes: The paper may be approved following minor changes based on the reviewer's suggestions. Authors have three to five days to make minor changes.

Reconsider after Significant Revisions: The revisions would determine if the manuscript was accepted. If parts of the reviewer's remarks cannot be changed, the author must offer a point-by-point rebuttal. The corrected article will be returned to the reviewer for additional feedback after the authors are given 10 days to resubmit it.

Reject: The paper may be rejected without the option of resubmitting to the journal because it has significant errors and adds nothing new.

Please be aware that only the journal editors and not the authors can see your recommendation. Revision, approval, and rejection decisions must always be supported by solid arguments.