Peer Review Policy

1. Type of Peer Review

  • A‑JMRHS follows a double‑blind peer review system:
    • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
    • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • This model is intended to reduce bias related to author nationality, institution, seniority, or reputation.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

  • All newly submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Editor‑in‑Chief or an assigned handling editor.
  • At this stage, the editor checks:
    • Fit with the journal’s aims and scope.
    • Basic scientific soundness and originality.
    • Compliance with author guidelines, ethical standards, and plagiarism checks.
  • Manuscripts that clearly do not meet the journal’s criteria may be desk‑rejected without external review to avoid unnecessary delay for authors.

3. Selection of Reviewers

  • Each manuscript sent for external review is typically evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.
  • Reviewers are selected based on:
    • Subject‑matter expertise.
    • Absence of conflicts of interest.
    • Prior reviewing experience and reliability.
  • When necessary, additional reviewers or statistical/methodological experts may be invited to ensure rigorous evaluation.​

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, fair, and constructive evaluations of the manuscript’s:
    • Originality and significance.
    • Methodological rigor and data quality.
    • Clarity of presentation and validity of conclusions.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all materials and not share, use, or disclose any part of the manuscript outside the review process.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest (financial, personal, academic, or competitive) and decline review when such conflicts may compromise impartiality.
  • Submit reports within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the editor if an extension or withdrawal from the review is needed.

5. Author Responsibilities During Review

Authors must:

  • Submit original, unpublished work not under consideration elsewhere.
  • Respond to reviewer and editor comments in a clear, point‑by‑point manner when revisions are requested.
  • Provide additional data, clarifications, or documentation (e.g., ethics approvals) when reasonably requested to verify the integrity of the work.
  • Refrain from any attempt to discover the identity of reviewers or to contact them directly.

6. Editorial Decision Making

  • After receiving reviewer reports, the handling editor synthesizes the feedback and may seek further opinions if needed.
  • Final editorial decisions include:
    • Accept
    • Minor revision
    • Major revision
    • Reject
  • Decisions are based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, ethical soundness, and relevance to the journal, not on predicted citation potential or commercial considerations.
  • Revised manuscripts may be re‑reviewed by the same or new reviewers, depending on the extent of revision.

7. Confidentiality and Data Protection

  • All manuscripts, reviews, and editorial communications are treated as confidential documents and handled in line with the journal’s Privacy Policy and data‑protection practices.
  • Reviewer identities are not shared with authors, and reviewer comments may be edited by editors to remove identifying information or inappropriate language before being sent to authors.

8. Handling Misconduct and Ethical Concerns

  • Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or other research‑integrity concerns raised by reviewers or readers are investigated carefully by the editorial team, following COPE recommendations.
  • Where necessary, the journal may:
    • Request explanations or raw data from authors.
    • Consult institutional authorities or ethics committees.
    • Reject or retract articles and publish corrections or expressions of concern.

9. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors who believe a decision was based on a misunderstanding or significant error may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editor‑in‑Chief.
  • Appeals are reviewed by the Editor‑in‑Chief, and, where appropriate, by an independent editor or additional reviewers.

Complaints about editorial conduct, peer review, or policy application are handled impartially, and corrective steps are taken when justified, in line with best practices for scholarly publishing.