Editor Guidelines

Editors are responsible for managing the peer review process for manuscripts, providing suggestions on whether to accept or reject a paper, and encouraging the submission of top-notch articles. The following guidelines for editors are derived from the COPE code of conduct and the best practice guidelines for journal editors [CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS].

Choosing reviewers

  • Editors have the responsibility to carefully select suitable reviewers for submissions. These reviewers should possess the ability to evaluate the work accurately and must not have any conflicting interests that might disqualify them.
  • A minimum of three reviewers should be selected by editors to provide their expert opinion.
  • If reviewers consistently submit impolite, low-quality, or delayed reviews, editors should discontinue their use.
  • To identify potential new reviewers, editors should not solely rely on personal contacts but also explore a diverse range of sources such as bibliographic databases.

Review process

  • Editors must ensure timely handling of all assigned manuscripts in order to achieve an initial decision within a period of 3 months.
  • Editors should make every effort to handle all papers assigned to them, regardless of the subject area. The return of a paper to a Section Editor for reassignment should only occur in exceptional cases. Section Editors aim to allocate papers appropriately, while also ensuring a fair distribution of work across the Editorial Board. Occasionally, it is unavoidable to assign a paper to an editor whose expertise lies outside its scope.
  • Even if a decision clearly aligns with the reviewers' comments, editors should still provide written feedback to authors. In such cases, a concise summary of the reviewers' comments in one or two sentences would suffice.
  • Editors must be prepared to provide a satisfactory explanation for any significant divergence from the prescribed peer review procedure.
  • Prior to accepting a review, editors should request that reviewers disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Editors must vigilantly assess the performance of peer reviewers and take appropriate measures to guarantee a high level of quality.
  • Editors should motivate reviewers to remark on ethical concerns and potential instances of research and publication misconduct that may be evident in submissions (such as unethical research methodology, improper manipulation and presentation of data).
  • Reviewers should assess the originality of submissions and remain attentive to instances of redundant publication and plagiarism.


  • Editors' recommendations for accepting or rejecting a paper for publication should be based on both the peer reviews and their own evaluation regarding the paper's importance, originality, and clarity, as well as the study's validity and its relevance to the journal's scope.
  • In cases where a submitted paper fails to meet the standard of the journal, editors are encouraged to recommend immediate rejection.
  • Editors should exercise caution when considering reversing a decision to accept a submission, as it should only occur in the presence of significant issues identified within the submission.
  • Regarding the decisions made by previous editors, new editors should refrain from reversing publication decisions unless they discover serious problems associated with the submission.
  • Whenever editors encounter suspected misconduct or disputes pertaining to authorship, it is their responsibility to inform the editor-in-chief or the publisher and mark such cases accordingly.

Post-publication discussions and corrections

Post-publication discussions are facilitated on the journal's website, as well as via email communication with the editor. Additionally, AJPS incorporates systems that enable the correction, revision, or retraction of articles subsequent to their publication.

Correction Policy

An erratum is a mistake that impacts the precision of a published paper and can potentially harm the reputation of the authors. Errata are released as standalone articles. AJPS publishes errata when there is a significant mistake, a factual error, or an omission in the methods, results, or conclusions. For an erratum to be warranted, the scientific error must be substantial enough to impact the scientific content of the article and the interpretation of results.

Cases that raise an erratum:

  • There was an incorrect or inadequate explanation and mention of a figure or table.
  • A figure or table was omitted.
  • A table contained incorrect results.
  • An author was inadvertently excluded.

AJPS will issue a notice of correction to articles with significant errors that impact the content or comprehension of the work, such as errors in data presentation, or errors that affect the publication’s metadata, such as misspelling an author’s name. Corrections will be published and linked to the original article.


Additionally, authors are expected to inform the editorial office of any errors they have discovered or have been informed of in their published article.

Removal of Published Content

AJPS may exercise the right to take down a paper from its website in exceptional circumstances. This occurs in instances where:

  • AJPS receives notice that the content is defamatory and contains inaccurate information regarding a method or researcher.
  • The paper infringes upon a third party's intellectual property rights, right to privacy, or any other legal rights.
  • The paper poses an imminent and substantial threat to safety and integrity if acted upon.


An addendum serves as a notification to include additional information in a published paper. It is important to highlight that these supplements do not challenge the original publication's content and are not intended to rectify any errors. AJPS will issue a correction notice for any errors that may occur. However, if an author wishes to update or add significant information, they have the option to publish an addendum. In accordance with AJPS policies, addenda may undergo peer review and are typically overseen by the editor of the research article.