To shorten the turn-around time and maintain high-quality scientific content, AMLS follows the editorial processes below as standard procedure.
- The entire process of AMLS publication is performed by using the automated online Editorial Managing System (EMS).
- On submission of manuscript the Editorial Managing System (EMS) generates an ID for the particular manuscript for future reference of the author and acknowledgment will be sent to the author for the receipt of the submission.
The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to an associate editor for review based on his/her research fields.
- If the associate editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal, the editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing. The rejection letter is sent to the corresponding author.
- If the editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he or she assigns the manuscript to 2 or 3 external reviewers for peer-review.
Anonymity We do not release reviewers' identities to authors, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel strongly, however, we prefer that reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done via the editor, or if this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after the reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author. We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.
- The agreed reviewers submit their review reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendations of one of the following actions to the associate editor:
- Accepted: Without any change.
- Revision: Minor Changes/Major changes.
- Reject: Manuscript is seriously flawed or the finding is already published in the literature.
- Any manuscript must be positively recommended by at least 2 external reviewers along with the editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process for every manuscript submitted to the journal.
When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the associate editor can make one of the following editorial decisions:
- Accepted: Without any change.
- Revision: Either minor or major Changes be made for a re-evaluation of the manuscript.
- Reject: Manuscript is seriously flawed and cannot be revised for a possible acceptance.
- In the case of a minor or major revision and re-submission, the authors are requested to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the recommendations made by the reviewers as well as the associate editor and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner.
- Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Associate Editor reviews the manuscript. If (s)he is satisfied with the revisions made by the author, the associate editor can then make an editorial decision of either acceptance, further revision, or rejection.
- The Editor cannot assign himself or herself the role as an external reviewer of the manuscript. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, it is highly recommended that the manuscript be rejected.
In the case of a revision and re-submission, the associate editor’s recommendations and the revised article are sent to the Editor-in-Chief for re-consideration. If the final decision of the Editor-in-Chief is to accept the manuscript for publication, the editor-in-chief notifies the Associate Editor and the author of the decision, and the manuscript is moved to the production process.