For Reviewers
The Role of Reviewers
Reviewers are essential to the quality, prestige, and integrity of AIMR. Through rigorous, impartial, and constructive evaluations, they ensure academic integrity and help authors refine their manuscripts.
Peer Review Process
AIMR uses a double-blind peer review process:
- Neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other's identity
- Each manuscript is evaluated by two independent reviewers
- Review period: 14 calendar days from manuscript receipt
Steps:
- Author submits manuscript + declaration of originality + proof of payment
- Editorial secretary checks technical compliance
- Editorial Board assigns two independent reviewers
- Manuscript sent to reviewers in anonymous format
- Reviewers complete AIMR-EVAL-F01 evaluation form
- Editorial Board analyzes reports and issues decision
- Author is informed (accept / revise / reject)
Evaluation Criteria
Each manuscript is assessed on 10 criteria, scored 0-4:
| # | Criterion | Score (0-4) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Originality and scientific contribution | |
| 2 | Clarity of objectives and hypotheses | |
| 3 | Appropriateness of research methodology | |
| 4 | Logical structure and organization | |
| 5 | Quality of data analysis | |
| 6 | Conclusions supported by findings | |
| 7 | Writing quality (style, grammar, expression) | |
| 8 | Compliance with AIMR editorial requirements | |
| 9 | Relevance and currency of references | |
| 10 | Ethical compliance and academic declarations |
Scoring: 0 = Not addressed | 1 = Very poor | 2 = Acceptable | 3 = Good | 4 = Excellent
Maximum score: 40 points
Editorial Decisions
| Decision | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accepted without changes | Published as submitted |
| Accepted with minor revisions | Small changes, no re-review |
| Major revision required | Significant changes, re-reviewed |
| Rejected | Not suitable (with justification) |
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Confirm availability within 3 days of invitation
- Decline if topic is outside expertise or conflict of interest exists
- Complete review within 14 calendar days
- Provide constructive, specific comments (not "paper is weak")
- Maintain strict confidentiality
- Do not use manuscript content for own research
- Report suspected misconduct to editorial team only
Writing Good Comments
What to include:
- Clear observation of the issue
- Brief explanation of the reason
- Concrete suggestion for improvement
Good example: "The research hypothesis is vaguely formulated. We suggest rewriting it in a testable form, specifying the expected relationship between variables."
What to avoid:
- Vague: "the paper is weak"
- Judgmental: "the author does not understand the topic"
- Aggressive: "I'm surprised this was written"
- Personal: comments must address content, not the person
Include positive feedback:
"The article stands out for its clear structure and effective use of recent sources."
Confidentiality & Conflict of Interest
- All manuscript information is strictly confidential
- Do not share content or discuss with others
- Decline if you: know the author, recently collaborated, are in competition, or could benefit from the decision
- Consult COPE Guidelines for best practices
Recognition
AIMR reviewers receive:
- Annual certificate as active reviewer
- Public acknowledgment on journal website (with consent)
- Formal recommendation for CVs and academic portfolios
- Priority consideration for Editorial Board membership
Downloads
- Reviewer Manual (full document, RO+EN)
- Evaluation Form AIMR-EVAL-F01 — available from the editorial office upon reviewer assignment
- COPE Reviewer Guidelines
Contact
Questions about the review process: aimr@univath.ro