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, and funding statements when applicable).
• Each manuscript sent for peer review is evaluated by a minimum of two independent external reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise and appropriate academic qualifications. Reviewers are selected from institutions or organizations different from the authors and are independent of the journal’s editorial team to ensure an unbiased evaluation. Editorial board members do not serve as reviewers for manuscripts they handle in an editorial capacity. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary to resolve conflicting recommendations or to provide further subject expertise.
• Reviewer identities remain confidential, and authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers at any stage of the review process. Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest immediately so the Editorial Office may assign an alternative reviewer when required.

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.

5. Fast Track Peer Review Procedure
   AMRJ offers a Fast Track review option for manuscripts requiring expedited editorial processing. The Fast Track procedure differs from the standard review process only in processing time, not in review rigor or quality standards.

       Under Fast Track review:

• Manuscripts undergo the same initial editorial assessment as regular submissions.
• At least two independent external reviewers are assigned.
• The journal prioritizes reviewer invitations and editorial handling to shorten decision timelines.
• Reviewer independence, double-anonymous review, and ethical standards remain unchanged.
  
  Fast Track review does not guarantee acceptance, and editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit and reviewer recommendations.