Peer Review Policy
JAMRIS applies a double-blind peer review model. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process in order to support an independent, fair, and unbiased evaluation.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial assessment. At this stage, the journal verifies whether the submission fits the aims and scope of the journal, complies with the formal submission requirements, demonstrates an appropriate level of academic and scientific quality, and meets basic editorial and ethical standards. Submissions will be checked for originality before proceeding further in the editorial process.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements, fall outside its scope, or raise serious concerns regarding originality, scientific quality, or publication ethics may be rejected at the preliminary stage without external peer review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic competence, availability, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
All participants in the peer review process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Where a conflict of interest is identified, the manuscript or review assignment will be reassigned as appropriate.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the originality, scientific quality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, relevance to the journal’s scope, and validity of the conclusions. Reviews should be objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful.
Reviewers may use the JAMRIS Referee Report Form when preparing their assessment.
Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and all related materials as confidential. Manuscripts under review may not be shared, discussed with others, or used for personal or professional advantage.
The journal’s peer review procedures are conducted in accordance with its editorial standards and recognized principles of good publication practice, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editorial assessment, the journal may reach one of the following decisions:
- accept;
- accept with minor revisions;
- request major revisions;
- reject.
When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a clear and structured response to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments within the deadline indicated by the editorial office. The response should address all substantive comments and explain any recommendations that the authors choose not to follow.
Where necessary, a revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further assessment. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance, and the revised version may be subject to further editorial evaluation or additional peer review.
The final decision on acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the peer review process, the editorial assessment, and the journal’s standards.
Acceptance may be reconsidered if substantial editorial, ethical, or technical concerns are identified before publication.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, language editing, production, and publication. Acceptance does not guarantee publication in a specific issue or within a specific timeframe.
