Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers selected for AJAG must meet established standards in terms of academic background, research experience, publication history, and, where applicable, formal training. They are chosen based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript and their ability to provide objective and informed evaluations.
Reviewers are responsible for assessing manuscripts based on their scope, accuracy, scientific quality, relevance, and contribution to the field. If a reviewer determines that a manuscript falls outside their area of expertise or if they are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they must promptly inform the Editor-in-Chief and return the manuscript.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are privileged and confidential documents. Reviewers must treat them with strict confidentiality and refrain from retaining, copying, or distributing them in any manner. Sharing the manuscript with colleagues or third parties is prohibited.
If reviewers suspect misconduct or ethical violations in a manuscript, they should report their concerns confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief and refrain from discussing the matter with others.
Review Process
An article review is a cornerstone of the scientific publication process, playing a critical role in ensuring the quality and integrity of published research. The Editors select reviewers based on their expertise, and their evaluations are intended to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and overall quality of submitted manuscripts while helping to identify the most suitable content for publication in this journal.
AJAG employs a double-blind review process, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. If the identities of either party are suspected or inadvertently revealed, all individuals involved are expected to uphold the integrity of the process by maintaining confidentiality. Authors and reviewers must refrain from any actions or communications that could disclose their identities.
Reviews should be conducted in a professional, honest, courteous, timely, and constructive manner.
Reviewers may suggest a specific course of action; however, the Editors must decide in light of differing recommendations. The most valuable reviewer reports are those that offer clear, well-supported insights to guide the Editors in making an informed and balanced decision.
Conflict of Interests
To maintain impartiality, reviewers should assess any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review and decline if they believe they cannot provide an unbiased evaluation. In such cases, an alternative reviewer will be appointed. Reviewers are also expected to disclose any relevant interests—financial, academic, or otherwise—that could be perceived as influencing their judgment; these disclosures will be taken into account when considering their recommendations.
The reviewers, Editor, or Editor-in-Chief may not use the content—data, arguments, or interpretations—of an unpublished manuscript for personal or professional gain. Doing so may constitute a conflict of interest and is considered a serious breach of ethical standards.
Use of AI
Using AI tools to edit or write reviews is not allowed, as these tools may expose sensitive information and lack the capability to provide accurate, unbiased assessments. Due to concerns over the reliability and bias of AI-generated content, AJAG prohibits the use of generative AI or large language models (LLMs) in any part of the peer review or editorial decision-making process.
Peer reviewers and editorial team members are personally responsible for ensuring the integrity, accuracy, and validity of their evaluations—standards that AI tools cannot meet. Any use of AI in this context will be treated as misconduct under AJAG’s peer review policy.