Peer Review

JAHM employs a double-blind peer review system, wherein both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to ensure impartial evaluation.

Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening for scope, originality, and ethical compliance, including plagiarism detection. Manuscripts that pass this stage are sent for peer review.

The peer review process is conducted through the journal’s online system. Reviewers are invited with the manuscript title and abstract and are given 7 days to accept or decline the invitation. Upon acceptance, reviewers are provided access to the anonymized manuscript and are required to submit their evaluation using the official JAHM review template.

Reviewers are typically expected to complete their review within 7–15 days, which may be extended up to 30 days upon request. The average review timeline from submission to decision is 2–8 weeks, depending on the responsiveness of reviewers and authors.

Reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and must not use any unpublished data for personal or professional advantage. All potential conflicts of interest must be declared prior to accepting the review.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled independently by other qualified editors and external reviewers, ensuring no involvement of the concerned editor in the decision-making process.

The final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) is made by the editorial board based on reviewer recommendations and scientific merit. The editorial board reserves the right to make the final decision.

Reviewer Guidelines

  • Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback
  • All comments must be submitted in written form using the JAHM Review Template
  • Reviewers should clearly indicate required revisions and provide actionable suggestions
  • Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the same reviewer(s) where possible

Ethics & Integrity in Peer Review

  • JAHM follows COPE guidelines for ethical peer review practices
  • All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software
  • Reviewer identities are verified, and suspicious review activities are monitored

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit appeals against editorial decisions by contacting the editorial office with justified reasons. All appeals are reviewed independently, and decisions are communicated transparently.