•  
  •  
 

Instructions for Reviewers

  1. General Tips: Agreeing & Submitting

    2. The following reminders and strategies will help us to continue to provide the best.

    • Possible peer reviews to the authors and your peers.
    • Agree to review or decline to review within 2-3 business days when possible.
    • There is no need to agree to review every paper.
    • It is better to get a “no” quickly, rather than no response.
    • If you find yourself declining more reviews than you accept, let us know so that we can better match papers to your areas of expertise.
    • When declining the invitation to review, please include a reason especially if we have misjudged your areas of interest or expertise.
    • If you do agree to write the review, continue to submit it on time or ahead of time.
    • If you accept the assignment, then you have 14 days period as time for revision and submission. So please submit the review before the 14-day period expires.
    • When an article’s status changes to “Required Reviews Complete” it indicates that 3 reviews have already been submitted. This status is a good indicator that Dr. Helmy might be able to decide on the paper soon. In case, if you have revised already but did not submit your revision yet, please submit your review soon after that status change to make us able to include your revision at:
    • If 7 days have passed after you accept the assignment, and you still plan on submitting the review after the 14-day period expires, contact the editorial staff at so we can give you more time.
    • The average time provided to a reviewer in the invitation for any article’s revision usually 14 days, after that the system will automatically move the reviewer status to (Reviewers Not Reviewed Manuscript in Review Due Date). In this case reviewer could receive a letter from the editorial board that his/her services are no longer required to review manuscript.
  2. Content of the Review

    3. Peer review is essential and is the cornerstone of AIMJ. A good review offers a summary to the editor-in-chief and more importantly, critiques the merits of the article. Included below are some key questions to consider:

    • Is this appropriate for AIMJ?
    • Is the topic interesting or original?
    • Are the methods well designed and ethical?
    • Does the article go in logic flow?
    • Can you suggest a better way to address the issue than what the authors did?
    • Do the figures/tables of high quality and add to the paper?
    • Would you cite this paper if published?
    • Does the data back up the author’s findings?
    • Does the conclusion base on proper findings?
    • Are there fatal flaws in the paper?

    Comments are Key:

    Please note that a review without any ‘comments to the editor’ or ‘comments to the author’ is not useful in the decision-making process for the editor or the revision process for the author.

    Meaningful, Constructive Comments:

    Be sure to posit your critiques to the author in a constructive manner. There is no purpose for negativity or mean spiritedness. Constructive comments should aim to help the author improve their paper, whether it winds up in AIMJ or another journal. Inflammatory, insulting comments are not allowed. Reviewer should declare that; there is not any conflict of interest.

  3. Earning Credit by reviewing for AIMJ
    4. You can earn Peer Review Recognition by reviewing for AIMJ via Editorial Manager Services, where an immediate update on ORCID and Publons (Web of Science) profiles will be executed. This feature goes together with providing a good review.