Review Process
Overview
The American Journal of Mathematics & Physical Sciences (AJMPS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure impartial evaluation and uphold scientific excellence. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review cycle, promoting objective feedback and fair editorial decisions.
Steps
Step: Initial Editorial Screening
Description: All submissions are first reviewed by the editorial office for completeness, adherence to formatting guidelines, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria may be returned to the authors for revision or declined without external review.
Step: Assignment to Reviewers
Description: Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent subject-matter experts selected based on their academic credentials, research focus, and lack of conflicts of interest.
Step: Double-Blind Peer Review
Description: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodological soundness, scientific contribution, clarity, and ethical standards. Constructive feedback and a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject) are submitted.
Step: Author Revisions
Description: Authors receive reviewer comments and are given a deadline to submit revised manuscripts along with a detailed response to each reviewer’s concerns.
Step: Final Editorial Decision
Description: The revised manuscript and author responses are reviewed by the editorial board. A final decision is made based on the reviewers’ input and the quality of the revisions.
Step: Copyediting & Proofreading
Description: Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting, typesetting, and formatting before being scheduled for publication.
Step: Publication & DOI Assignment
Description: The final version is published online with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), ensuring permanent accessibility and ease of citation.
Review Criteria
Criterion: Originality
Description: Does the manuscript offer a novel contribution to mathematics, physics, or a related discipline?
Criterion: Scientific Rigor
Description: Are the methodologies sound, results accurate, and conclusions well-supported by evidence?
Criterion: Clarity & Structure
Description: Is the manuscript clearly written, logically organized, and presented in a scholarly format?
Criterion: Relevance to Scope
Description: Is the content relevant to the aims and scope of AJMPS?
Criterion: Ethical Compliance
Description: Does the submission follow ethical standards regarding research integrity and citation practices?
Review Timeline
Editorial Screening: 3–5 days
Peer Review: 3–4 weeks
Revision Time: 2–3 weeks (minor) or 4–6 weeks (major)
Final Decision: 1–2 weeks after resubmission
Publication After Acceptance: 7–10 days
Reviewer Guidelines
Expectations:
- Provide objective, constructive, and scholarly feedback to help authors improve their work.
- Maintain confidentiality and do not share or use the manuscript content.
- Identify methodological flaws, gaps in logic, or areas needing clarification.
- Ensure that all relevant literature is properly cited.
- Report any suspected plagiarism or ethical misconduct.
Reviewer Recognition:
- Reviewers receive an official Certificate of Review Contribution upon request.
- Top reviewers may be invited to join the editorial board.
- Exceptional reviewers may be eligible for APC discounts or publishing credits.