AGMR.-An Open Access Journal from Hapres

Review Process

Pre-check

It includes two steps.

1. Journal Editorial Office Assessment

Once the submission is received, the journal Editorial Office will do the initial check to assess:

a) whether the manuscript has been prepared following the journal’s Guide for Authors and conforms to the submission criteria;

b) whether it is with the scope of the journal;

c) whether the language, structure, figures, etc. meet the journal’s requirements.

Obviously poor manuscripts will be rejected immediately without any further review.

2. Academic Editor Assessment

An Academic Editor, including the Editor-in-Chief for regular submission, or the Guest Editor for special issue submissions or an editorial board member in case of a conflict of interest, will be invited to check whether the manuscript is interesting and of sufficient quality. If not, the manuscript will be rejected immediately before peer review.

Peer Review

We adopt a single-blind peer review process for most of our journals. It means that the identity of the reviewer is anonymous, but the authors’ names and affiliations are not hidden.

Each submitted article shall be subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two qualified reviewers. The reviewer comments are generally communicated to the authors within 30 days of submission. Authors should contact the Editorial Office if the delay has been longer.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the research filed and all reviewers shall meet the following requirements:

a) no conflict of interest with any of the authors;

b) ability to evaluate the paper fully and fairly;

c) availability to review the paper within the given timeframe.

The journal Editorial Office shall assist the Academic Editors to handle all communications with reviewers, authors, and the external editors. Academic Editors can check the status of manuscripts, reviewer identity and reviewer comments at any time. Reviewers are expected to return their review comments within a given deadline, but extensions can be granted on request.

Editor Decision

When enough review reports are collected, the Academic Editor will make a decision based on reviewers’ suggestions. Decision choices include:

a) Accept for publication;

b) Reject;

c) Major/Minor revisions required;

d) Ask for Another Reviewer.

When making decisions, Academic Editors will check:

a) the suitability of selected reviewers and the adequacy of reviewer comments;

b) how good the paper might become after revision;

c) the overall scientific quality of the paper.

Authors will be notified immediately once the decision has been made.

Revision

If revisions are needed, authors are usually requested to revise their manuscript based on reviewer comments and editor recommendations within a given deadline. The revised version will be sent to the Academic Editor for final decision directly when only minor revisions are recommended. Manuscript with major revisions will be normally sent back to some or all of the original reviewers for review again. In both cases, a cover letter with point-by-point responses to reviewers’ comments and a detailed explanation of how the manuscript has been revised should be submitted along with the revised version.