Reviewer Guideline
Double-blind Review
This journal uses double-blind refereeing, which means that the identities of the referees and authors are not disclosed to each other during the review of a manuscript. The identities of the authors are kept confidential and the identities of the referees are also kept confidential.
Title Page (with author information): The title page should include the names and institutions of the authors and the contact details of the corresponding author, as well as the full address.
The blinded manuscript without author information should be as follows: The main body of the manuscript (including references, figures and tables) should not include any identifying information such as the names or affiliations of the authors.
Peer Review Guide
Follow the steps from the system to have an article evaluated
Please use your ID and password to log in.
Log in to the AMPAS journal panel (login)
Log in to the referee panel (login)
From the new invitation section, click on the title of the article assigned to you for peer review.
Follow the instructions on the page to accept or reject a review.
Please click the button to accept the review.
After you have accepted to view the article, you will be able to review the entire article in the ‘Documents’ section.
Please fill out the review form in the ‘Documents’ section after reviewing the article. If available, please upload the review file.
Finally, click on the ‘Send the Review’ button on the right side.
Peer Review Processes
AMPAS selects referees from among experts on the topics covered in the manuscripts. All selected reviewers are informed about the responsibilities, ethical principles, article evaluation criteria and procedures of the journal.
Reviewers who accept reviewing requests through the system should consider the ‘Responsibilities of Reviewers and Ethical Principles to be Followed’ and ‘Reviewing Processes’.
Reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the required level of expertise, respect the confidentiality of blind reviewing, and keep the details of the manuscript confidential at all times.
Reviewers invited to evaluate manuscripts are expected to announce their evaluation decisions within 7 days. If the referee does not make a decision by the end of this period, he/she is considered to have refused the review and the editor will appoint a new referee. Reviewers who accept the invitation are required to submit their opinions within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the review. If the referee is unable to complete the review process within the specified period and if requested, an additional 15-day period is granted. If the arbitrator does not request additional time, a new arbitrator may be selected.
Each reviewer, if they accept the review invitation, is asked to fill out a review form to indicate their acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
In this evaluation form, the referees are expected to give their opinions on the following issues:
Title and Content Coherence
Language and wording of the article
Systematic Compliance with Scientific Standards
Determination of the Scope and Conceptual Framework
Integrity of the subject
Identification of the problem
Literature Review: Review of Previous Studies
Methods Research
Presentation, Organisation and Consistency of Information
Critical perspective
Access to new scientific research
Achieving results
Consistency with research results and rational relationship between results.
Contribution to the field
Reviewers provide feedback on these issues by selecting one of the following options: Adequate, Not Sufficient, Partially Sufficient, Mostly Sufficient. It is not obligatory for the referees to approve all these points for the publication of the article. However, suggestions and other feedback for the ‘Not Sufficient’ and ‘Partially Sufficient’ sections marked on the evaluation form should be shown in the ‘Note to Author’ section.
After completing this form, reviewers may decide to make the following decisions:
- Revise manuscript (major revision) (The manuscript needs to be reorganised with major revision)
- Revise manuscript. (minor revision)
- The article is not suitable for publication. (Reject)
- The article can be published as it is. (Accept)
The AMPAS journal appoints two external referees who are not members of the editorial board. If one report is favourable and the other unfavourable, the manuscript is referred to a third referee. At least two referee reports are required for an article to be accepted, but a single report is sufficient for rejection. If one referee report is ‘Acceptance’ or ‘Minor Correction’ and another report is ‘Major Correction’ and the editor thinks that the article should be accepted, the authors make the corrections and send the article back to the same referee. The manuscript is either rejected or referred to another referee, depending on the belief of the referee reporting the need for a ‘Major Correction’.
A referee may request that the manuscript be re-evaluated after revision. The referee is given an additional 15 days for this review. Reviewers can use the messaging section to contact the editor, or use the same section to report suspected violations. Authors cannot see the correspondence here. It is possible to ask the editor for a detailed review of data in articles based on data analysis or field research. The journal editor will liaise with the author on this matter and then forward the data to the referee.
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest with researchers and/or research funders. If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer should contact the editorial board and disclose any potential conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework developed by COPE will be taken into account in the handling of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers may not use data from the manuscripts they review before publication or share these data with others. The identities of the reviewers involved in the journal evaluation process are kept confidential and will not be disclosed.
After Acceptance
Online editing: We kindly request that authors send us corrections within two days in order for the manuscript to be published quickly. Authors will receive information by email with a link to our online proofing system, allowing online annotation and correction of proofs. The platform has features similar to MS Word: in addition to editing text, users can comment on figures and tables and answer questions from the Copy Editor. Web-based editing allows you to enter your corrections directly to avoid errors, ensuring a faster and more reliable process.
If you prefer, you can choose to annotate and upload your edits to the PDF version. Our email to authors will include full instructions for proofreading, as well as alternative methods for accessing the online version and PDF.
Please use this attempt only to check the formatting, organisation, completeness and accuracy of the text, tables and figures. Only with the editor's approval can substantial changes be made to the accepted manuscript. It is important to focus on a single communication that ensures that all corrections are transmitted back to us. Please check carefully because there is no guarantee that subsequent corrections will be added. The entire proofreading is your responsibility.
Volunteer as a Reviewer
We are constantly looking for new reviewers. If you would like to volunteer, please create an account in our online editorial office to be added to our database of reviewers. When you create an account, please fill in details such as keywords and special interests to appear in our reviewer database searches. We hope that the reviewers of the AMPAS journal will be committed to improving peer review.
