Peer review forms the foundation of academic and scientific publishing, safeguarding the integrity, credibility, and reliability of published research. At AJBMSS, we are committed to maintaining a rigorous and unbiased evaluation process for all manuscript submissions.
Each submission is first subjected to a technical assessment conducted by the journal’s managing editor to ensure compliance with standard formatting requirements. Manuscripts that meet these standards are referred to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) for a determination of their eligibility for peer review. Submissions deemed appropriate advance to the peer review stage, while others are either returned to the authors for revisions or declined.
Criteria for Reviewers
At AJBMSS, we are committed to upholding stringent and ethical standards in the evaluation of manuscripts. Reviewers are required to deliver timely and transparent assessments in alignment with COPE guidelines. To ensure the quality and integrity of the peer review process, all reviewers must adhere to the following criteria:
- Possess an academic or industry affiliation
- Use an institutional email address
- Hold a PhD degree in the relevant discipline
- Exhibit a robust publication record
- Ensure that there are no conflicts of interest with the authors.
- Have no prior association with the authors
Diversified Peer Reviewers
Ensuring diversity among peer reviewers is fundamental to our dedication to upholding excellence in the rigorous peer review process. By engaging reviewers from a wide range of backgrounds, disciplines, and demographics, we enhance the robustness and fairness of our system. At AJBMSS, the editorial team prioritizes the inclusion of reviewers from diverse geographical regions, fostering a comprehensive and impartial assessment of submissions.
Peer Review Model
AJBMSS follows a single-blind peer review system, ensuring that reviewers’ identities remain anonymous to authors. Research articles, reviews, and other manuscript types submitted to AJBMSS undergo a thorough evaluation, typically by two to three independent reviewers. Furthermore, every manuscript is rigorously checked for plagiarism using Turnitin software to detect overlapping or similar content during the in-house editorial review.
Submissions to AJBMSS are first assessed for completeness before being reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who determines their eligibility for the peer review process. If the Editor-in-Chief is an author or has a conflict of interest with a manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board is assigned to manage the review process. The Academic Editor—either the Editor-in-Chief or a conflict-free Editorial Board member—considers peer review reports when making preliminary and final decisions. However, they are not obliged to follow reviewers’ recommendations. Any significant concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor may result in the rejection of the manuscript. Authors receive detailed peer review feedback along with the editorial decision.
Manuscripts such as Editorials, Book Reviews, and Commentaries that do not present primary research or secondary analysis of such research may be accepted without undergoing peer review.
The Selection of Reviewers
The Editor-in-Chief plays a pivotal role in selecting peer reviewers. Typically, the Editor-in-Chief proposes 3-4 reviewers drawn from the Editorial Board, Reviewer Panel, or subject-matter experts. Additionally, authors of the manuscript may suggest 2-3 potential reviewers to facilitate the review process. While these suggestions are not binding, they often expedite proceedings. Authors may also specify reviewers they wish to exclude during the submission process. In certain instances, the Editorial Office identifies additional qualified reviewers using reputable databases such as PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science, ensuring their expertise aligns with the manuscript’s focus and scope.
Invitation to Reviewers
Reviewers whose expertise aligns closely with the manuscript’s scope are invited to participate in the review process. They are asked to confirm their availability to review the full manuscript within the specified timeframe and are provided with the manuscript’s title and abstract for consideration. Reviewers may:
- Accept the invitation within the prescribed timeline
- Accept the invitation while requesting an extended timeline
- Decline the invitation promptly
- Decline the invitation and suggest alternative reviewers
The Reviewer’s Agreement
Upon agreeing to review a manuscript, the reviewer will receive the complete document shortly thereafter, with a review deadline of two weeks from the date of invitation. Should the reviewer have prior commitments that may prevent timely completion, they are advised to request an extension as soon as possible. On average, the review process takes three weeks from the submission date.
Reporting Guidelines
All comments and assessments regarding the submitted manuscript must be submitted through the designated link within the OJS system. Feedback and critical evaluation of the paper’s methodology and results should always be provided in English. Reviewers are expected to verify that the paper adheres to the relevant guidelines specified by the author, as follows:
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) – For randomized controlled trials
TREND – For non-randomized trials
PRISMA – For systematic reviews and meta-analyses
CARE – For case reports
STROBE – For observational studies
STREGA – For studies of genetic association.
STARD and TRIPOD – For diagnostic accuracy studies.
COREQ – For qualitative research.
ARRIVE – For research using animal experiments.
MOOSE – For meta-analyses of observational studies
EQUATOR – For an appropriate checklist and reporting guidelines.
Manuscript Evaluation
The selected reviewers assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope, its clarity, thoroughness, and overall quality. Additionally, they evaluate the visual elements, the coherence of the sections, and the integrity of the references. Each section of the manuscript must be reviewed individually, with comprehensive comments provided for both the author and the editors. The feedback intended for the editors is confidential and will not be shared with the author.
Final Recommendation
Reviewers are required to issue a final recommendation for each manuscript based on their analysis. The possible outcomes include:
- Accept with Minor Revisions
- Accept with Major Revisions
- Reject with Suggestion for Resubmission
- Reject Without Resubmission
These recommendations play a critical role in determining the manuscript’s outcome. The Editor-in-Chief or managing editor receives the review reports, summarizes the main recommendations for improvement, and conveys them to the authors. Manuscripts that require significant revisions will undergo re-evaluation by the same reviewers once the revised version is submitted. In cases of ethical concerns or potential misconduct, reviewers must promptly halt the review process and notify the Editorial Office for appropriate follow-up.
Reviewers’ Benefits
We deeply appreciate the commitment and voluntary contributions of our reviewers in conducting peer reviews. To acknowledge their efforts, we offer the following benefits:
Certificate of Appreciation: Provided upon the successful completion of each peer review.
APC Discounts: Available after reviewing a minimum of three manuscripts.
Editorial Board Invitations: Exceptional reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board after one year of outstanding performance.
Service Discounts: Exclusive discounts on graphic enhancement and language editing services.
Conflict of Interest
If a reviewer identifies any potential conflict of interest, they must immediately disclose it to the journal’s editor via email. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
Affiliated Conflict: The reviewer is from the same institution as one of the authors.
Collaborative Conflict: The reviewer has co-authored, collaborated, co-founded, or maintained academic ties with any of the authors within the last five years.
Personal Relationship Conflict: The reviewer has a personal connection, rivalry, or animosity towards any of the authors.
Financial Conflict of Interest: The reviewer may experience financial gain or loss from the publication of the paper.
Non-Financial Conflict: The reviewer has conflicts related to political, religious, ideological, or academic beliefs.
Disclosure of Conflict: Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality in evaluating the submitted paper.
Confidentiality Policy
AJBMSS adheres to the highest standards of confidentiality throughout the manuscript review process, ensuring the protection of authors’ intellectual property and professional reputations. Reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from revealing any details of the manuscript, review status, or feedback without prior consent. The identities of reviewers are kept anonymous, and manuscripts may not be copied or shared without explicit approval from the editor. Furthermore, any public discussion or use of an author’s ideas before publication is expressly forbidden. This rigorous policy reinforces AJBMSS’s commitment to safeguarding authors’ rights and upholding the integrity of the peer review process.
Handling of Peer-Review Fraud
To preserve the integrity of the journal and the scholarly content it publishes, it is essential to maintain a rigorous peer review process. Adhering to COPE guidelines helps prevent any manipulation of the peer review process. The established protocols for addressing peer-review misconduct are as follows:
If suspected during peer review: [COPE RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL]
If suspected after publication: [COPE RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL]
Reviewer Citation Manipulation
Reviewer citation manipulation is an unethical behaviour in which reviewers suggest authors cite sources that are unrelated to the subject matter being reviewed, primarily to boost their own citation metrics. To preserve the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers are urged to recommend only those references that are directly pertinent to the article under evaluation.
This practice undermines the quality and objectivity of scientific publications, which the peer review process is designed to uphold. Editors are advised to adhere to the COPE guidelines if instances of citation manipulation are detected.
Reviewer Registration
If you wish to become a reviewer for AJBMSS, kindly submit your application by completing the reviewers’ registration form. Your profile will be assessed by the Editor, and if it aligns with the journal’s requirements, you will be invited to review articles.