Peer review is the major quality keep measure for any academic journal. In this process, experts in the relevant fields, analyze the scholarly work from every perception, including its writing, the accuracy of its technical content, its documentation, and its impact on and implication to the discipline.
Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing, and their valuable opinions certify the quality of the article under thoughtfulness. Peer review helps to approve research, establishing a standard for evaluation within research communities.
IJAM – Indian Journal of Applied Microbiology Journal employ the peer review process in order to maintain academic standards and insure the validity of individual works submitted for publication. In addition, follows a double-blinded peer review process, to ensure independent editorial decision-making.
Based on reviewer(s) commentary and recommendations, manuscripts may be sent back to authors for revision. After the managing editor receives the revised manuscript within the approved timeline, it is assigned to the reviewer(s) once again, for approval of changes. But the final decision to publish is made by the Editor-in-Chief / Editorial Board.
Author submits an article through the journal website portal.
Submitted articles are assigned to a team of two editors who assess the submission for language and scope. Articles are either rejected if they do not fit the Journal’s scope or language requirements, moved forward to peer review, or sent back for revisions by the author. Authors can expect the status within 3 weeks regarding their initial submission.
Articles that are deemed appropriate for peer review are assigned by managing editor. The managing editor organizes external (for original research / review articles, brief reports, case reports etc) or internal (for letters to the editor, editorials) peer review. Comments from peer review are compiled and a decision is made to reject / accept the article (with or without minor revisions) or return the article to the author for major revisions. Peer reviewers are given 4 weeks to review an assigned article and provide feedback. Authors should be aware that some delays may occur while appropriate peer reviewers are found.
Revisions to be required, authors are given up to 3 weeks to provide point-by-point response to reviewer feedback and resubmit a track-changed manuscript. Revised manuscripts are either accepted as is, returned to the author for further changes (if revised one not satisfied) or undergo a second round of peer review. The whole revision process will be completed within the above timeline of 4 weeks for review and feedback for 3 weeks for authors to respond.
Upon acceptance, managing editor will copy-edit the manuscript and provide suggestions regarding grammar (if any) and final form. Authors will have the opportunity to reject or accept said suggestions. Once the above process finalized upon a final proof will be generated. Authors will have one final opportunity to request any changes to the form of the final article before it is uploaded online to the journal website.
Please Note: Some delays in the review process can be expected during the summer months. Any questions regarding the stage of your article please contact editorial board (Managing Editor) through email correspondence.