Axis Journal of Medical and Biosocial Sciences (AJMBS)

Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Double-Blind Peer Review and Editorial Process Policy

Axis Journal of Medical and Biosocial Sciences (AJMBS)

1. Commitment to Rigorous and Impartial Review

The Axis Journal of Medical and Biosocial Sciences (AJMBS) is a UK-based, peer-reviewed, open access journal published by Axis Academics Limited (UK). The journal employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated solely on scholarly merit, free from bias related to authors' or reviewers' identity, affiliation, or nationality.

AJMBS is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, and scientific rigor, in accordance with the ICMJE Recommendations.

2. Peer Review Process Overview

The complete submission and editorial evaluation pathway, including initial assessment, plagiarism check, editorial decision, and desk rejection, is detailed in the journal's Submission and Editorial Evaluation Pathway. This policy document specifically governs the double-blind peer review component of that process.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review Procedure

3.1 Anonymization Requirements

To preserve double-blind integrity, authors must remove all identifying information from their manuscript before submission, including:

  • Author names and affiliations

  • Acknowledgements that reveal identity

  • Self-citations that would identify the authors (e.g., "as we previously showed" → "as previously shown")

  • Any institutional identifiers in figures, metadata, or file properties

3.2 Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial assessment and similarity check are assigned to at least two independent, expert peer reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Relevant subject matter expertise

  • Publication record in the field

  • Absence of conflicts of interest

Authors may suggest reviewers, but these suggestions are independently verified by the editorial team and are not binding. The journal reserves the right to select reviewers at its sole discretion.

3.3 Reviewer Responsibilities

Invited reviewers must:

 
 
Responsibility Description
Confidentiality Not share or disclose the manuscript or any part thereof
Objectivity Provide unbiased, constructive, and scholarly feedback
Timeliness Complete reviews within the timeframe specified in the invitation
Conflict Disclosure Declare any potential conflicts of interest immediately upon receipt of invitation

Reviewers who cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe should decline the invitation or notify the editorial office promptly.

3.4 Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Validity and methodological soundness

  • Significance and contribution to the field

  • Originality and novelty

  • Clarity and quality of writing

  • Ethical compliance with ICMJE Recommendations

4. Revision and Re-Review

 
 
Revision Type Description Review Process
Minor Revisions Small corrections (e.g., clarifying text, missing references) May be reviewed by the handling editor without external reviewers
Major Revisions Significant changes to methodology, analysis, or interpretation Subject to a second round of double-blind peer review

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide:

  1. A point-by-point response to all reviewer comments

  2. A marked-up version showing changes made

  3. A clean revised manuscript

Multiple revision rounds may be necessary before a final decision is reached.

5. Editorial Decision Authority

The handling editor consolidates reviewer comments and recommendations to arrive at a final decision. Possible outcomes are detailed in the Submission and Editorial Evaluation Pathway and include:

  • Acceptance (with or without minor revisions)

  • Minor Revisions Required

  • Major Revisions Required (subject to re-review)

  • Rejection

The final decision rests solely with the handling editor. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, not binding.

6. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

 
 
Principle Application
Manuscript Confidentiality All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose or misuse unpublished content.
Conflict of Interest All parties (authors, reviewers, editors) must declare any potential conflicts of interest.
Ethical Compliance The journal strictly adheres to ICMJE ethical guidelines and COPE principles.

7. Safeguarding Review Integrity

AJMBS maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward peer review manipulation. To ensure integrity:

  • Reviewer identities and credentials are verified before invitation

  • Author-suggested reviewers are rigorously vetted

  • Suspicious activity (e.g., fake reviewer accounts, citation manipulation) triggers additional independent reviews

  • Reviewer selection remains fully independent of authors

All peer review records and editorial decisions are securely archived for permanent preservation.

8. Scope of This Policy

This policy governs the peer review process only. For information on:

 
 
Topic Refer to
Submission preparation Author Instructions
Plagiarism check Submission and Editorial Evaluation Pathway
Open access and licensing Access, Licensing, and Preservation Policies
Article processing charges Policy on Article Processing Charges and Waivers
Appeals and complaints Policy on Appeals, Complaints, and Dispute Resolution

9. Policy Review and Updates

AJMBS reserves the right to update this policy as needed to align with evolving ethical standards and publishing best practices. The current version is always available on the journal website.