The process of peer review is double bind process which includes experts, those who have common area of interest, expertise and experience to evaluate the work to be published. The reviewers will be given priority utmost to reflect the appraisals of a research work and to extract the potentialities of the researcher. On submission, all papers undergo initial screening for selection for the JAOH by the Editors. Suitable papers will be sent to at least two independent referees chosen by the Editor-in-Chief, and the reports from the referees are then considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who will make the final decision. Papers which are considered to be unsuitable for the JDS will be informed by email to the corresponding author. For papers requiring modification, once the modified manuscript is returned it is checked by the Editor-in-Chief. If further modifications are required the manuscript is returned to the author(s) with a letter and/or report explaining further changes. A letter of acceptance is sent to the Corresponding Author requesting all authors sign the contributory form and submit by e-mail. Finally Galley Proof is sent to the Corresponding Author for further addition/deletion in the proof and then considered for publication online/print.
Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are authors’ private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details. Reviewers therefore should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers must not publicly discuss authors’ work and must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews. Reviewers who seek assistance from a trainee or colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals’ contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript as outlined above, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers must request permission from the journal prior to using AI technology to facilitate their review. Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to requests to review and to submit reviews within the time agreed. Reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, and polite. Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.
I. General Information
II. Scientific Criteria
| Review Criteria | Questions | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Originality | Are the problems discussed in the article new? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Significance | Does the article have a considerable contribution to a certain area of research? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Relevance | Does the article present relevant information for its area of research? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Presentation | Does the article have a logic structure? Is the article correctly written (from the grammar point of view)? Does the article present in an appropriate way the terminology for its area of interest? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Title | Does the title clearly express the content of the article? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Abstract | Does the abstract describe the research and the results? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Introduction | Does the introduction correctly highlight the current concerns in the area? Does the introduction specify the research objectives? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Methodology | Are the methods used clearly explained? Are the data and statistics used reliable? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Results | Are the results clearly presented? The results sufficiently avoid misinterpretation? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Conclusions | Are the conclusions correctly / logically explained? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| References | Do the references reflect the latest work/research in the considered area? Are the references properly indexed and recorded in the bibliography? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Tables | Should correctly indicate the measuring units and the source? Are the tables correctly named and numbered? Are the data presented in tables correctly valued and interpreted in the article? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| Graphs and figures | Graphs and figures should be properly illustrate the discussed subject Are the graphs and figures correctly named and numbered? | Poor Needs Improvement Good Excellent |
| PLAGIARISM | Accepted Rejected |
|
Comments to the Author: __________________________________________________________