Peer Review Process

1. Review Criteria
Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:
(1) the material is original and timely;
(2) the manuscript is written clearly and in accordance with the guidelines for authors;
(3) appropriate study methods have been used;
(4) the data are valid;
(5) the conclusions are reasonable and well supported by the data;
(6) the information contained in the manuscript is relevant to the scope of the journal.

2. Peer Review Flowchart
Peer Review Mode: The JARM operates double-blind peer review, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.
Selection of Reviewers: Reviewer selection is based on expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest, etc.

(1) Pre-Check: All submitted manuscripts pass a preliminary check through the academic editor to check whether they can be sent for peer review.
(2) Peer review: a manuscript will be reviewed by at least two reviewers. The peer review process will help editors make better decisions. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when deciding but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themselves may result in the manuscript being rejected.
(3) Editor decision and revision: in cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring it to the external editor. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the Academic editor. Apart from exceptional circumstances, we allow a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript.