Editorial Process Guideline

Overview of Editorial Process

AJBM follows a structured editorial review process:

1. Submission received
2. Initial editorial assessment
3. Double-blind peer review by at least two experts
4. Decision based on reviewer reports
5. Revision cycle(s) as required
6. Final acceptance or rejection

This model follows COPE recommendations for transparent editorial practice.

Initial Editorial Screening

• All manuscripts are submitted through the journal’s online Manuscript Tracking System.
• Upon receipt, each submission is screened by the Editorial Office for completeness, format compliance, scope relevance, and plagiarism (using iThenticate).
• The Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor reviews the manuscript to assess:
  • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Originality, scientific merit, and ethical compliance.
  • Suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts deemed out of scope, of insufficient quality, or ethically noncompliant are rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection).

Assignment to Handling Editor

If the manuscript passes initial screening, it is assigned to a Handling Editor (a member of the Editorial Board) with relevant subject expertise and no conflict of interest.
The Handling Editor oversees the peer review process, selects appropriate reviewers, and makes an editorial recommendation.

Reviewer Selection

• Each submission is reviewed by at least two external, independent reviewers who possess expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
• Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the review.
• The journal maintains an international reviewer pool and uses specialized databases and editorial judgment to select reviewers.

Double-Blind Peer Review

AJBM operates a double-blind model, meaning:

• Reviewers do not know author identities
• Authors do not know reviewer identities

Manuscripts must be anonymised before review.

Editorial Decision Categories

After receiving all reviewer reports, the Handling Editor suggest the decision and Editor-in-Chief makes a decision based on reviewer feedback:

• Accept: The paper proceeds to technical editing and publication.
• Minor Revision: Authors are given time to make the requested changes. The editor reviews the revised manuscript to confirm that all comments have been addressed before acceptance.
• Major Revision: Authors are asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript, addressing all reviewer concerns. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript is declined, and detailed feedback is provided to the authors.

If the majority of reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript is rejected automatically.

All editorial decisions are final and made solely based on academic merit, scientific accuracy, and ethical integrity.

Revision & Resubmission

Authors must submit a point-by-point response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the specified deadline (usually within 4 weeks). Failure to meet the deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

Appeals Procedure

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may file an appeal by writing to the Editor-in-Chief ( email: editor@ajbm.net) within 15 days of the decision.
The appeal should include:

• A detailed justification for reconsideration.
• Evidence or new information supporting the appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by an independent senior editor or member of the editorial board not involved in the initial decision, in accordance with COPE’s appeals and complaints policy.

Reviewer Roles & Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

• provide objective, scholarly feedback,
• maintain confidentiality,
• declare conflicts of interest,
• avoid using unpublished data for personal advantage.

Reports should be constructive and respectful.

Confidentiality and Data Protection

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and correspondence are confidential. Personal data of authors, reviewers, and editors are protected in compliance with GDPR and the journal’s data privacy policy.

Editor-as-Author

1. Initial Submission Stage

Flag the Conflict Early: Use automated tools like Elsevier’s Check Integrity system to detect if the submitting author is also an editor. If flagged, the submission must be reassigned immediately to a higher-level independent editor.
Disclosure Requirement: The editor-author must declare their role in the journal in the manuscript’s Conflict of Interest section. If not provided, request an editorial disclosure statement.
2. Editorial Assignment

Reassign to Independent Editor: The submission must be handled by an editor with no personal or professional ties to the author. The original editor must be excluded from all stages of peer review and decision-making.
Document the Reassignment: Record the reassignment and rationale in the journal’s editorial management system for audit transparency.
3. Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Review: Ensure the manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by at least two external reviewers with no known conflicts.
Reviewer COI Checks: Require reviewers to complete a COI declaration form before accepting the review task.
4. Decision and Acceptance

Independent Decision: The final decision must be made by the reassigned editor, with no input from the editor-author.
Ethics Screening: Conduct a final ethics check before acceptance, including plagiarism screening and COI verification.
5. Post-Acceptance Transparency

Publish Disclosure: Include a statement in the published article noting that the author is an editor of the journal and that the manuscript was handled independently.
Editorial Oversight Acknowledgement: Display the name of the responsible editor on the article to ensure accountability.