Peer Review Process

Overview

JOAHM employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process. All submitted manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated by a minimum of two independent, expert reviewers with relevant subject area expertise. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Editorial Screening

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief and/or an Associate Editor to assess:

• Suitability for JOAHM's scope and focus
• Adherence to this Authors' Guide formatting requirements
• Originality and freedom from plagiarism (assessed using plagiarism detection software)
• Overall quality and scholarly merit

Review Outcomes

Following peer review, authors will receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept as submitted: The manuscript is accepted without any revisions.
• Accept with minor revisions: Small corrections are required; the revised manuscript may not require a further review cycle.
• Major revisions required: Substantial changes to the manuscript are needed; the revised manuscript will be sent back to the reviewers.
• Reject with invitation to resubmit: The manuscript requires fundamental reworking but may be resubmitted as a new submission after extensive revision.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for JOAHM and is unlikely to become so with revision.

Responding to Reviewers

Authors who are invited to revise their manuscripts must:

• Submit a detailed, point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments
• Clearly indicate in the response letter where each change was made (with page and line numbers)
• Highlight all changes in the revised manuscript using Track Changes or highlighted text
• Submit the revised manuscript within the stipulated revision deadline (usually 30 days for minor revisions; 60 days for major revisions)