Review model

AJRMG uses double-anonymised peer review: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. At least two independent experts review each manuscript that passes initial assessment.

The review process

1. Submission. The editorial office acknowledges each submission by email.

2. Technical check. The Managing Editor checks the manuscript for completeness, anonymisation, format and similarity to published work.

3. Editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief or a handling Associate Editor decides whether the manuscript fits the scope and meets the quality threshold for review. Manuscripts that do not meet it are declined without external review, with reasons.

4. Peer review. The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

5. Decision. The handling editor weighs the reviewers' reports and recommends a decision. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

6. Revision. Authors revise the manuscript and respond to each comment in a separate response document. The editor may return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers.

7. Acceptance and production. Accepted manuscripts move to copy editing, proofs and publication.

Target timelines

Stage	Target
Acknowledgement of submission	Within 2 working days
Technical check and editorial assessment	Within 5 days
Reviewer reports	Within 5 days
First decision	Within 14 days
Online publication after acceptance	Within 21 days

Possible decisions

✓ Accept
✓ Minor revisions
✓ Major revisions
✓ Reject and invite resubmission
✓ Reject

Choosing reviewers

Editors choose reviewers for their expertise and independence. Reviewers must not work at the same institution as any author, have collaborated with any author in the past three years, or hold any other conflict of interest. Authors may suggest reviewers or ask that particular people not review their work; the editor considers these requests but is not bound by them.

Submissions from editors and the publisher

When an editor, board member or member of the publisher's staff or board submits a manuscript, an editor with no conflict of interest handles it. The submitting person has no access to the review and takes no part in the decision. The article states this in a note on publication.

Similarity checks

The editorial office screens every submission with a similarity detection service. A high similarity score does not by itself lead to rejection; the editor reviews the matches and acts in line with our Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision within 30 days by writing to editor@ajrmg.org, setting out the grounds for appeal. An editor not involved in the original decision reviews the appeal, may seek further expert advice, and reports to the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision on the appeal is final.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers treat every manuscript as confidential. The journal does not publish reviewer reports or reviewer names.

Peer Review Policy