Review Model and Editorial Decisions

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject or methodological expertise. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors.

Standard pathway: Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Author Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision.

Reviewer recommendations may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. They are advisory; the responsible academic editor has final scientific-editorial authority, subject to applicable journal governance. Divergent reviews may prompt clarification or an additional independent assessment.

Invitation, Expertise and Conflicts of Interest

• Accept an invitation only when the manuscript is within the reviewer's expertise and can be reviewed within the stated timeframe.
• Promptly disclose actual or potential financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, supervisory or personal conflicts of interest.
• Decline or consult the editor when independence or appropriate expertise cannot be assured.
• Do not identify blinded authors, contact them directly, share the manuscript or delegate the assignment without editorial authorization.

Scientific Review Criteria

• Relevance and contribution: Fit with a recognized AMAR scholarly field, research gap, originality and contribution.
• Scholarly grounding: Coherent research question and appropriate literature, theory or conceptual framework.
• Methodological credibility: Transparent, defensible research or review procedures appropriate to the manuscript type.
• Evidence and interpretation: Validity of analysis or synthesis, correspondence between results and conclusions, and recognition of limitations.
• Research integrity: Ethics, consent where required, data transparency, accurate citations and DOI information, and absence of serious originality or reference concerns.

Research Papers and Literature Review Papers must be assessed according to their actual methods. Reviewers should not require unrelated analyses, impose a preferred method without justification, or coerce irrelevant citations.

Constructive Review Reports

Reports should identify major scientific concerns separately from minor presentational corrections, explain their significance and provide actionable recommendations supported by the manuscript and relevant scholarship. Maintain professional and respectful language.

Report suspected misconduct confidentially to the responsible editor with evidence, rather than independently contacting authors or institutions. Reviewers should not use unpublished information for personal, research or commercial advantage.

Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Authors asked to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the editor's and reviewers' comments. Reviewers should check that the response addresses each substantive issue, that stated amendments appear in the revised text, and that the changes are adequately supported by evidence.

During subsequent rounds, review should prioritize unresolved issues from earlier decisions. New major requirements should be raised only when the revisions introduce a material problem, new evidence reveals an important concern, or a significant scientific or ethical issue was reasonably missed.

Reviewers' recommendations remain advisory; unresolved matters and any final decision are handled by the responsible academic editor.

Confidentiality, AI and Communication

Confidential manuscripts, extracts, unpublished data, reports and correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible or otherwise insecure AI services. Any proposed external assistance involving confidential content requires explicit editorial authorization and adequate safeguards. AI systems must not replace independent reviewer judgment.

Inform the Editorial Office promptly of delays, conflicts, suspected breaches or technical difficulties. Qualified scholars may indicate reviewer interest through OJS registration; registration does not guarantee an assignment.

Reviewer Directory →  ·  Publication Ethics →  ·  Register as a Reviewer →