Editorial Process
The journal IJAMM implements a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the highest quality of publications, managed by researchers and scholars. We uphold that peer review should be efficient, thorough, and equitable for all participants. In IJAMM, the process involves a single-blind assessment by at least two independent reviewers, culminating in a final acceptance or rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief or another Editorial Board Member authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is accountable for the academic integrity of the publication process.
The editorial process is summarized in the flowchart below.
IJAMM Editorial Process.
A Step-by-Step Guide to Article Publishing
1. Initial Submission
When you are ready to submit your manuscript, please use the journal’s online submission system. Upon receipt, your manuscript will be assigned a Manuscript number. An automated notification will be sent to all authors, informing them that your submission has been successfully received by the journal’s Editorial Office.
2. Technical Check
We will ensure that your article adheres to the journal’s guidelines for ethics, plagiarism, contributors, and copyright permissions.
3. Pre-Check
The editor (The Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, or an Editorial Board Member) will be notified of the submission and invited to conduct an editorial pre-check. During this phase, the editor will evaluate the submission’s alignment with the journal’s scope and its overall scientific rigor, including the relevance of references and the accuracy of the applied methodology. Based on this assessment, the editor may reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or proceed with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers.
4. Peer Review
The peer review process for IJAMM is single-blind, where the author remains unaware of the reviewer’s identity, but the reviewer knows the author. At least two review reports are collected for each submission, with the editor suggesting potential reviewers during the pre-check. The peer review process not only acts as a filter to ensure only high-quality research is published but also provides feedback for authors to improve their work.
Editors select referees based on their independence, expertise, recent related assessments, and ability to review within the required timeframe. Authors may suggest referees, although these suggestions may not always be followed. Editors will honor requests to exclude certain scientists from reviewing. Two or three independent reviewers are typically selected from the global research community with great care.
These reviewers provide critical evaluations of the paper’s validity and significance, offering their perspectives on its novelty, impact, and relevance to readers. Reviewers are encouraged to categorize their feedback into the following recommendations:
- Accept in Present Form;
- Accept after Minor Revisions;
- Reconsider after Major Revisions;
- Reject.
Please note that reviewers’ recommendations are only visible to the journal editors and not the authors. Decisions regarding revision, acceptance, or rejection must always be well-substantiated.
Reviewer reports are intended to guide the editors. The editors consolidate all advice received to reach a final decision. Generally, all comments intended for the authors are transmitted. Occasionally, comments may be edited to maintain anonymity and collegiality in the review process.
5. Revision
Authors are encouraged to thoroughly consider and address all reviewers’ and editors’ comments. This process allows authors to improve their manuscripts accordingly. Authors can respond to reviewer comments, indicating changes made or justifying disagreements. A new cover letter with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ and editors’ comments should accompany the revised submission.
If minor revisions are recommended, authors should prepare and submit a final copy with the required changes. The editor will review this final version before acceptance.
For major revisions, the revised manuscript is sent back to the original reviewers. Their recommendations will influence the editor’s final decision, which could range from acceptance to rejection. Typically, a maximum of two rounds of major revisions are allowed.
6. Editor Decision
Final decisions on manuscripts are made by editors (the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or an Editorial Board Member) after receiving at least two review reports. Editors evaluate the suitability of reviewers, the adequacy of reviewer comments and author responses, and the overall scientific quality of the paper.
One of the following editorial options will be made by an editor, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and authors’ feedback:
- Accept in current form
- Accept after Minor Revisions
- Rejected
Articles are accepted only by editors without conflicts of interest. Editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and alert the Editorial Office to any potential conflicts of interest.
7. Acceptance
After the editorial recommendation “Accept in current form” is made by the editor, the manuscript will be accepted immediately, and emails will be sent to all authors of the manuscript.
8. Production
The production team handles the production of all manuscripts, including layout, English editing, and XML/PDF conversion.
Authors will receive proofreading requests for approval before publication. Proofreading the final version of the manuscript is a necessary step before publication online.
9. Publication Online
All articles are published in PDF and HTML formats online. Corresponding authors’ contact details and articles are featured in a press release service, attracting the attention of global media organizations.
updated May 2024
