EAJHS’ Reviewing Process

The following is the reviewing process that every manuscript submitted to the EAJHS journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process.

  1. EAJHS journal ensures a double-blinded review process.
  2. A submitted manuscript passes through the screening and preliminary review.

If the Editor finds that the manuscript may not be of sufficient quality to go through the normal peer review process, or that the subject of the manuscript may not be appropriate for the journal’s scope, the manuscript shall be rejected with no further processing.

  1. Manuscripts that successfully passed the preliminary review and meet the minimum requirements have been reviewed, at least, by two peer-reviewers. Peer reviewers shall be experts in the fields related to the corresponding manuscript, having at least the rank of Assistant professor.

If the Editor finds that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, they should assign the manuscript to a number of external reviewers, provided that no conflict of interests exists between these reviewers and the manuscript’s authors. The reviewers will then submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor: Reviewers may recommend accepting (with minor or major revision) or rejecting.

  • If the Editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.
  • If the Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the authors are expected to revise their manuscript in accordance with that recommendation and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the original reviewers are asked to review it. Along with their review reports on the revised manuscript, the reviewers make a recommendation which can be “Publish Unaltered,” “Consider after Minor Changes,” “Consider after Major Changes,” or “Reject.” Then, the Editor can make an editorial recommendation which can be “Publish Unaltered,” “Consider after Minor Changes,” or “Reject.”
  • If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if the majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.
  1. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.
  2. The name of the Editor recommending the manuscript for publication is published with the manuscript to indicate and acknowledge their invaluable contribution to the peer-review process and the indispensability of their contributions to the running of the journals.
  3. Information or ideas obtained through review of manuscripts shall be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  4. EAJHS recognizes the contribution of reviewers to the journal.

The peer review process

1. Submission of Paper

  • The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal via an online system using the portal.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

  • The Editorial Office checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the journal’s Author Guidelines, but this does not include assessment of the quality of the paper.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

  • The Editor-in-Chief assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality and merits. At this stage the Editor-in-Chief may reject the paper.

4. The Editor-in-Chief Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)

  • The Associate Editors (or equivalent) who handles peer reviews.

5. Invitation to Reviewers

  • The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of reviewers is secured.

6. Response to Invitations

  • Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation to review. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review process

  • The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with the reviewer’s recommendation (e.g. to revise, accept or reject the paper).

8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

  • The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

9. The Decision

  • The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejectedor sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article.