Dear Candidate (Writer, Editor, Reviewer),
I hope this message finds you well.
As the managing editor, I would like to extend this invitation. Our journal is dedicated to developing rigorous academic discourse and upholding standards of research integrity. The journal aims to be a leading platform for scientific contributions that drive meaningful impact in the journal's field of study.
We seek high-quality manuscripts for future editions aligning with our excellence commitment. Given your expertise in this journal's research area, we would be honored to consider your research contribution for publication. Your insights and scientific work will be valuable to our journal, further enriching discourse in this field.
In addition to accepting manuscripts, we are expanding our editorial and review team with leading academics who share our vision of academic excellence. Therefore, we would be delighted if you could join this journal as an editorial board member or reviewer. Your expertise and critical evaluation will be invaluable in maintaining the quality and credibility of our published research.
If you are interested in contributing a manuscript or joining our editorial and review team, please do not hesitate to contact us via the journal's email or the managing editor's contact number (click Contact Us) in the sidebar section of the journal. We would be happy to discuss this further and answer your questions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We are excited to work with you and your response.
Sincerely,
Managing Editor,
An editor first reviews the submitted manuscript. It will then be evaluated in the office to determine whether it is suitable for the Advances in Human Resource Management Research focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score. This is done using Turnitin, the minimum number and age of references that we require, and template suitability.
The manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers (Double Blind Review). Reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author by the editor for necessary actions and responses.
Peer review of referred papers:
The suggested decision will be evaluated in an editorial board meeting. Editors of Advances in Human Resource Management Research will promptly decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. They will also have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. The authors will be advised when editors decide further review is required.
Peer review process
This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.
Mission
The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.
Vision
Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.
Values
The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.
Ethics
All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.
Peer review models
This image shows that the peer review process is a layered evaluation system involving:
- Initial assessment by the editor,
- Evaluation by expert reviewers,
- Revisions based on feedback,
- And a final decision that can result in publication, revision, or rejection.
Single-anonymous peer review
The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. However, the name of the author is shared with the reviewers.
The fact that reviewers remain anonymous means they can speak honestly and impartially. Meanwhile, knowledge of an author’s identity can help reviewers place an article in the context of the author’s earlier work.
Double-anonymous peer review
The reviewers aren’t told the name of the author, and the author never learns the names of the reviewers.
Outside of the triple-anonymous model (see below), this is the surest way to ensure that the process is completely objective.
The focus remains on the content of the article, and the possibility of reviewer bias is eliminated. Reviewer bias may be favourable or unfavourable, conscious or unconscious.
Triple-anonymous peer review
The identities of the author, reviewers and editors remain hidden from each other. The author is usually identified only by a number and communication takes place through a website or submission system. This eliminates any potential bias.
Open peer review
This can vary in form. It may be as simple as making the author and reviewers known to one another, or the reviews – and the reviewers’ names – may be published alongside the article. The review process may take place pre- or post-publication, and reports may receive their own DOIs, making them discoverable and citable.
This offers complete transparency. Some believe that the knowledge that reports are going to be published encourages reviewers to produce higher-quality reports overall. The post-publication format publicly recognises the important work of the reviewers.
Our approach to article peer review
The majority of our journals have adopted a double-anonymous peer review model, with reviewers invited by the journal editor.
If the editor decides to decline the manuscript, either before or after peer review, they may offer to transfer it to a more relevant Advances in Research journal in the same field. If the author accepts that offer, any reviews that have already taken place are transferred to the new journal, along with the manuscript.
To be a Reviewer in AHRMR is very simple; anyone can register voluntarily at the following LINK ,During the registration process, make sure to check the box: "Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal." Don’t forget to add your areas of interest/expertise.
At AHRMR, Reviewers are not employed or Financially compensated; instead , they are selected from the pool of registered user. as a gesture of appreciation , eligible reviewers who agree to assess a manuscript will receive a discount 10% on the article fee for any manuscript they submit to AHRMR.
Reviewers are strongly advised against using Artificial Intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted tools in the scientific review process. The critical thinking and independent judgment required for peer review surpass the capabilities of such technologies, which may be prone to producing incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions. Moreover, uploading a manuscript or any part of it to an AI tool could compromise its confidentiality, violating the authors' proprietary rights and potentially breaching privacy regulations, especially when personal data is involved. Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding both the manuscripts and their reviews, as they may contain sensitive information. Ultimately, reviewers bear full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of their comments.