Author Guidelines

To be published in AJESMS, a paper must be scientifically valid and technically sound in methodology and analysis. Manuscripts are not assessed based on their perceived importance, significance or impact; the research community makes such judgements after publication.

The review process

Manuscripts that appear to be scientifically valid upon initial assessment will be sent for formal review.

After considering the reviewer reports, the Managing Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept outright
  • Request a minor revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific concerns
  • Request a major revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address significant concerns and perhaps undertake additional work
  • Reject outright

Upon submission of a revised manuscript, the Managing Editor may wish to ask the original reviewers for further advice. We therefore request that reviewers are willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. But Editorial Board Members will not send resubmitted papers to reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the reviewers’ criticisms.

Selecting reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and it is the responsibility of our Editorial Board Members to choose appropriate reviewers. Their choice is based on multiple factors, including expertise, specific recommendations, and previous experience. Invitations to review a manuscript are confidential.

Writing the review

The primary purpose of the review is to provide our Editorial Board Members with the information needed to reach a decision. It should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their manuscript to the point where it may be acceptable for publication.

Reviewers should be mindful that they are assessing the manuscript on technical soundness and scientific validity. This refers to both the methods and analysis: the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data. We ask that reviewers do not assess the importance or significance of a paper - the research community will make this judgement after publication. The review should consider the following questions:

  • Is the paper technically sound?
  • Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
  • Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data?
  • Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
  • If the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, does the study seem sufficiently promising that the authors should be encouraged to consider a resubmission in the future?
  • Is the manuscript clearly written? If not, how could it be made more accessible?
  • Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
  • Are there any special ethical concerns?

Confidentiality and pre-publicity


AJESMS keeps all details about a submitted manuscript confidential and does not comment to any outside organization about manuscripts that are either under consideration or that have been rejected.

After a manuscript is submitted, correspondence with AJESMS, reviewers' reports and other confidential material, regardless of whether or not the submission is eventually published, must not be posted on any website or otherwise publicised without prior permission. The Editorial Board Members themselves are not allowed to discuss manuscripts with third parties or to reveal information about correspondence and other interactions with authors and reviewers.

Reviewers of manuscripts submitted to AJESMS undertake in advance to maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and any associated supplementary data.


Our policy on the posting of particular versions of the manuscript is as follows:

1.             You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time.

2.             AJESMS articles are open access and can replace the original submitted version immediately, on publication, as long as a publication reference and URL to the published version on the AJESMS website are provided.

AJESMS authors must not discuss contributions with the media (including other journals) except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media once an embargo date has been set.

Contributions being prepared for or submitted to AJESMS can be posted on recognized preprint servers, and on collaborative websites such as wikis or the author's blog. The website and URL must be identified in the cover letter accompanying submission of the paper, and the content of the paper must not be advertised to the media by virtue of being on the website or preprint server. Material in a contribution submitted to AJESMS may also have been published as part of an academic thesis.


We are committed to providing rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community. We therefore ask reviewers to provide a report within one week of receiving a manuscript, but this may be extended by prior arrangement. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to inform the Editorial Board so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternative reviewers.


We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. We prefer that reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the Editorial Board Members’ knowledge. We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities. We neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.

Editing reviewers' reports

As part of our editorial policies, we do not edit reviewer reports and any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid comments that may cause needless offence but authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language.

Competing interests

We aim to respect requests of our authors to exclude specific Board Members or reviewers. We also try to avoid reviewers who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, who have commented on drafts of the manuscript, who are in direct competition to publish the same finding, who we know to have a history of dispute with the authors, or who have a financial interest in the outcome. It is not possible for the Editorial Board to know of all potential biases, so we ask reviewers to draw attention to anything that might affect their review, and to decline invitations to review in cases where they feel unable to be objective.

We recognize, however, that competing interests are not always clear-cut, and the above circumstances need not automatically undermine the validity of a report. Indeed, the people best-qualified to evaluate a paper are often those closest to the field, and a skeptical attitude towards a particular claim does not mean that a reviewer cannot be persuaded by new evidence. Editorial Board Members try to take these factors into account when weighing reviewers' reports.

Online manuscript review

Reviewers must submit their comments via our online submission system by following the link provided in the Managing Editor's invitation email. 

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Journal Identifiers

eISSN: 2508-1128
print ISSN: 0855-501X