Editorial Process

Editorial Process

The editorial process at JMRAS is designed to ensure fairness, efficiency, and quality. All submissions undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief to determine relevance, originality, and adherence to journal policies. Suitable manuscripts are then assigned to Section Editors, who identify qualified peer reviewers. Once reviews are received, the editor evaluates them collectively and prepares a recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final publication decision. Throughout the process, communication between editors, authors, and reviewers is handled confidentially and professionally.

Editorial Guidelines

Editors must conduct themselves with impartiality, discretion, and integrity. They are expected to evaluate manuscripts solely based on scholarly merit, without bias toward nationality, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships. Editors must also ensure that reviewers are selected objectively and that conflicts of interest are avoided. JMRAS follows the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, and all editorial decisions are expected to comply with its principles of fairness, transparency, and confidentiality.

Decision-Making Process

Editorial decisions at JMRAS are based on a balanced consideration of reviewer feedback, the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims, and its contribution to scholarly discourse. The Editor-in-Chief makes final decisions after consultation with Section Editors and reviewers. Detailed feedback is provided to authors, explaining the rationale behind acceptance, revision requests, or rejection. This structured process ensures accountability and provides authors with a constructive pathway toward improvement.

Reviewer Management

JMRAS maintains a continuously updated database of reviewers with demonstrated expertise in their fields. Reviewers are selected based on academic credentials, research specialization, and prior experience in peer review. The editorial office monitors reviewer performance to ensure timely and comprehensive evaluations. Reviewers demonstrating consistent excellence are recognized annually and may be invited to join the Editorial Board.

Confidentiality Protocols

All materials handled during the editorial and review process are strictly confidential. Editors and reviewers are prohibited from sharing, citing, or using unpublished material for personal research. Manuscripts are stored securely using encrypted systems that comply with UK data protection standards. Confidentiality extends to all communications, ensuring that the integrity of the peer-review process is maintained at every stage.

Author Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe their manuscript was evaluated unfairly. Appeals must be submitted in writing within thirty days of the decision notice and should include a detailed justification. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal with at least two independent members of the Editorial Board not previously involved in the decision. This appeal process ensures fairness, transparency, and respect for the author's scholarly contributions.