Reviewer guidelines

Peer review process

The peer reviewers are selected by Head of the Editorial Team according to the scientific paper topic and the reviewer expertise.

The author and a reviewer are not in an employment relationship, are not members of the same working group, are not a supervisor and a student, and are not members of the same family.

Each paper is reviewed by the Head of the Editorial Team and, if it meets submission criteria, it is sent to two referees for double blind peer review. Based on their recommendations, the Head of the Editorial Team then decides whether the paper should be accepted as is, revised or rejected. In submitting research papers, the authors are asked to prepare their manuscripts in such a way that they do not reveal their identities to reviewers, either directly or indirectly. For better quality of research papers reviewers use a standardised template for review. This template requires the author to provide feedback and comment on amendments to the paper made after the review. The reviewing process and quality criteria of the ADAMarts are described in Authors Guidelines.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

Reviewers evaluate article submissions to ADAMarts based on the requirements of the journal, predefined criteria, and the quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented. They provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the Head of the Editorial Team about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the Head of the Editorial Team but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome.

Peer reviewers’ role and requirement to:

Respect the confidentiality of peer review, and not discuss the manuscript with others.
Declare any conflicts of interest.
Provide an objective and constructive explanation for their recommendation.
Not allow their decision on a manuscript to be influenced by its origin or authorship.
Not reproduce information or any part of the manuscript under review in any of their own work prior to publication by the authors.
Only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe.
Report to the Head of the Editorial Team about any suspected publication misconduct
Not delay publication.
Not use insulting, hostile, or defamatory language.
Destroy submitted manuscripts and all related material after they have reviewed them.

Publication misconduct

At ADAMarts, we deal with the suspected publication misconduct on a case-by-case basis while following guidance produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

We take seriously all possible misconduct. If Head of the Editorial Team has concerns that a submitted article describes something that might be considered to constitute misconduct in research, publication, or professional behaviour, we may discuss the case in confidence with The ADAMart's ethics committee. If the case cannot be resolved by discussion with the author(s), and the Head of the Editorial Team still has concerns, s/he may report the case to the appropriate authorities.

Each paper is reviewed by the editor and, if it is judged suitable for this publication, it is then sent to two referees for double blind peer review. Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Based on their recommendations, the editor then decides whether the paper should be accepted as is, revised or rejected.

Review of submitted revision

Once authors revise and resubmit manuscripts requiring any revisions, the manuscript, is sent back to the original reviewers whenever possible. In some cases, the editor may solicit additional reviewers. Guided by the authors’ responses to the reviewers’ initial feedback, reviewers consider whether the changes improve the manuscript sufficiently to warrant publication. The editor provides feedback to authors and renders a publication decision.

Handling appeals

ADAMarts welcomes genuine appeals to editor decisions. However, the author will need to provide strong evidence or new data/information in response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.