Reviewer Guidelines
Review for AJPS
1- The review process for AJPS does not specify a specific structure for review reports, but it suggests the following format:
- Summary
- Major issues
- Minor issues
2- If a reviewer feels he/she is not qualified to review the manuscript, it is highly recommended and appreciated to apologize for accepting the invitation.
3- The reviewer's report should provide a comprehensive critique of the manuscript and contain more than just a few brief sentences. We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscript by offering constructive analysis, especially when revisions are recommended.
4- If there are certain comments that reviewers do not want authors to see, they can be added to the confidential comments section for the editor's eyes only.
5- Please ensure to check the English language. If the article requires significant English editing, please inform us, but do not reject the paper solely based on language issues.
6- If you decide to reject the paper, please provide a few reasons for the rejection, highlighting its major shortcomings, and perhaps offer a few suggestions with references to published work on the topic.
7- The review report for the manuscript can be found review form
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under peer review must remain confidential at all times and should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside of the peer review process. However, reviewers are allowed to seek advice from their research group members if necessary, as long as the confidentiality of the manuscript is upheld. Reviewers should inform the AJPS or the Editor in Chief in advance and include the names of the colleagues they are consulting with in the 'Comments to the editor' section of their report.
Conflicts of interest
When reviewers possess a financial interest in the subject matter of the work, have engaged in prior discussions regarding the manuscript with the authors, or feel incapable of maintaining objectivity, they should choose not to proceed with reviewing the manuscript.
