At the AMRJ, submitted contributions undergo a meticulous review to assess their adherence to submission guidelines. Following this initial screening, the submission is forwarded to an editor for a comprehensive evaluation of its suitability for peer review. To ensure impartial judgment, cases where conflicts of interest arise, such as an editor’s affiliation with an article, prompt the assignment of an alternate editorial Board member to oversee the peer-review process. While peer-review reports undoubtedly influence editorial decisions, the ultimate determination rests with the editors, who retain full autonomy to make unbiased judgments. It’s important to highlight that a single concern raised, whether by a peer reviewer or editor, can lead to the rejection of the paper. The outcomes of the peer review, coupled with the editorial decision, are communicated expeditiously to the authors.
To uphold the principles of fairness and objectivity, the AMRJ strictly adheres to a double-anonymized peer-review policy for all submissions. Authors are kindly urged to meticulously remove any identifying information, including names, affiliations, and acknowledgements, from their manuscript before submission. This proactive measure significantly contributes to preserving the integrity of the peer-review process. Peer reviewers, chosen for their subject expertise, are responsible for maintaining confidentiality regarding the manuscript’s content. Furthermore, reviewers are explicitly instructed to uphold the anonymity of the author(s) during the review process. In cases where potential conflicts of interest arise during the review, reviewers are promptly expected to notify the editorial board.
Preserving confidentiality is a foundational pillar of the peer-review process at the AMRJ. It is non-negotiable that authors and reviewers strictly adhere to these established confidentiality guidelines, guaranteeing the process’s credibility. Any breach of confidentiality—such as inadvertent disclosure of identities or sensitive details—may have serious consequences, including the rejection of the manuscript or other appropriate actions deemed necessary. Authors who submit to the AMRJ must be agreed to these policies and are urged to steadfastly uphold the standards of confidentiality. This collective commitment reinforces a robust and reliable peer-review system.
Considering the authors’ time and the urgency of scholarly dissemination, the AMRJ prioritizes an efficient review process. Following the initial assessment, manuscripts seamlessly transition to the peer-review phase. Peer reviewers are allocated a dedicated period of two to four weeks to conduct their evaluations. When a reviewer’s response is delayed beyond this timeframe, alternative reviewers are promptly engaged to ensure minimal disruption and timely progress. This strategic approach aims to curtail delays and sustain the momentum of the review process, ultimately facilitating a streamlined publication journey for authors.