AMR uses a “double blind” peer review process. This means that authors do not know the identity of the reviewers and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. Here’s how it works: the editor first reviews your paper and, if it is suitable for the journal, assigns it to an associate editor. The associate editor then reviews your paper and, if it is suitable to go out for review, invites reviewers based on their expertise. Some reviewers are members of the editorial board, while others may come from our database of ad hoc reviewers. We usually get three reviewers for each manuscript, and we ask them to return their reviews within 30 days. After getting the reviews, the associate editor makes the decision about whether to invite a revision or reject the manuscript.
Our goal is to get you a decision within 60 days, but sometimes reviewers need a bit more time to complete their reviews. You can follow the progress of your paper by logging on to Scholar One and checking the status of your paper through the “Author Center” portal: Manuscript Central.
Please also note that the review process takes a bit longer for Special Topic Forums (STF). Even if you submit your paper early, it will not be sent out for review until after the submission window for the STF closes. We also have a bit less flexibility in granting authors extensions on revisions for STF manuscripts, given the tight deadlines for special issues.
If you have any questions about your manuscript, feel free to contact the associate editor assigned to your paper or the AMR managing editor.
Article is closed for comments.