Peer Review Policy

1. Initial Assessment and Editorial Oversight

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening to confirm compliance with AMRJ’s submission guidelines and ethical standards. During this stage:

  • An editor evaluates the manuscript’s relevance, quality, and suitability for peer review.

  • AMRJ maintains strict editorial impartiality. Editors are not permitted to submit their own manuscripts to the journal to avoid conflicts of interest.

  • Peer-review reports guide decision-making, but the final decision rests with the Editor to ensure independent and unbiased judgment.

  • A manuscript may be rejected at any stage if significant concerns are raised by an editor or a reviewer.

  • Editorial decisions and review outcomes are communicated promptly to authors.

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

AMRJ follows a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review system to ensure fairness, objectivity, and the elimination of bias.

  • Authors must remove all identifying information before submission (names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding statements when applicable).

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise and academic qualifications.

  • Reviewer identities remain confidential, and authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers at any stage.

  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest immediately so the Editorial Office may assign an alternative reviewer.

3. Confidentiality and Ethical Compliance

Confidentiality is a core component of AMRJ’s peer-review system.

  • Manuscripts and reviewer reports must not be shared, cited, or discussed outside the review process.

  • Unauthorized disclosure of identities or manuscript content may result in rejection or other corrective action.

  • By submitting a manuscript, authors agree to abide by the journal’s confidentiality and ethical review policies.

4. Review Time Frame

AMRJ prioritizes an efficient and timely review process.

  • After the initial editorial assessment, manuscripts are forwarded promptly for peer review.

  • Reviewers are typically given 2 to 4 weeks to complete their evaluations.

  • If a reviewer does not respond or submit a report within this period, an alternate reviewer is assigned to avoid delays.