Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy – Aitoz Multidisciplinary Review (AMR)

The Aitoz Multidisciplinary Review (AMR) follows a rigorous, transparent, and unbiased peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and integrity of published research. The journal adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and industry best practices.

1. Type of Peer Review

AMR employs a Double-Blind Peer Review Process, meaning:

  • The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
    This ensures fairness and impartiality in the evaluation process.

2. Peer Review Process

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

  • The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary check for scope, formatting, plagiarism, and ethical compliance.
  • Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements are rejected or returned for revision.

Step 2: Assignment to Reviewers

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers.
  • Reviewers are selected based on expertise, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Step 3: Review Evaluation

  • Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:
    • Originality and contribution to the field
    • Methodology and data accuracy
    • Clarity, organization, and language quality
    • Relevance and citation of prior research
  • Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommendations:
    • Accept without changes
    • Accept with minor revisions
    • Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
    • Reject due to fundamental flaws or ethical concerns

Step 4: Author Revisions

  • Authors must address all reviewer comments and submit a revised version within the given deadline.
  • A point-by-point response to reviewer comments is required.

Step 5: Final Decision by the Editorial Board

  • The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors make the final decision based on reviewer reports.
  • If necessary, a third expert reviewer may be consulted.

Step 6: Proofreading & Publication

  • Accepted articles undergo final proofreading, formatting, and DOI assignment before publication.
  • Authors receive a pre-publication proof for final approval.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.
  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, data falsification, or ethical concerns.

4. Editorial Independence & Ethics

  • The editorial team ensures decisions are based solely on scholarly merit.
  • No commercial, political, or personal influence is allowed in decision-making.
  • Ethical violations are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

5. Appeal Process

Authors may appeal a rejection by submitting a formal appeal letter with justifications. The Editorial Board will re-evaluate the decision.

AMR is committed to high-quality peer review that upholds academic integrity, fairness, and transparency.