Ensuring Research Excellence: The Double-Blind Peer Review Process at the Aathiyoga Indian Journal of Ancient Medicine and Yoga (AIJAMAY)

The cornerstone of high-quality published research is rigorous and unbiased assessment. At the Aathiyoga Indian Journal of Ancient Medicine and Yoga (AIJAMAY), we are committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly publishing, and double-blind peer review serves as the crucial foundation for this commitment. This process ensures an objective evaluation of submitted manuscripts, and our reviewers play an indispensable role in maintaining AIJAMAY’s reputation for excellence. All unsolicited manuscripts undergo a thorough peer-review process, adhering to the guidelines outlined below.

  1. Initial Manuscript Screening: Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the journal editors. While uncommon, exceptional manuscripts may be accepted at this stage. Submissions that do not meet the journal’s fundamental requirements, either due to significant scientific flaws or falling outside the journal’s scope and focus, will be rejected at this initial screening. Manuscripts that meet the basic criteria are then forwarded to at least two expert reviewers for in-depth evaluation. Authors whose submissions are rejected during this initial stage will be notified within two weeks of receipt or provided with guidance from the editors on potential re-submission.
  2. Grounds for Immediate Rejection: To ensure efficiency in the review process, certain manuscripts are subject to immediate rejection without proceeding to external peer review. This includes manuscripts containing plagiarism, exhibiting substantial technical errors, or lacking a clear and relevant message within the field. Manuscripts clearly outside the scope of AIJAMAY may also be rejected at this stage.
  3. Final Decision and Notification: Following the peer-review process, the corresponding author will be informed of the final decision regarding their manuscript – acceptance or rejection. This notification will include feedback and recommendations from the reviewers, potentially including direct comments.
  4. Appealing a Decision: Authors who wish to appeal a peer-review decision are invited to submit a formal appeal to the Editors-in-Chief, outlining their concerns. Appeals will be considered only if there is evidence of an insufficient or unjust review process. In such cases, the manuscript may be submitted to new, independent reviewers for a fresh evaluation.
  5. Authority of the Editorial Board: Ultimately, the authority to make the final decision on the publication of a manuscript rests with the Editorial Board, informed by the feedback from reviewers. The corresponding author will be notified of the acceptance, rejection, or required revisions to their paper.
  6. Revision Process: If the reviewers recommend minor or major revisions, the corresponding author is expected to provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each reviewer’s comment, along with a revised version of the manuscript. This revised manuscript should be submitted to the editor.
  7. Final Acceptance Criteria: A manuscript will only be formally accepted for publication after receiving final approval from both the editor and the reviewers.
  8. Copy editing and Proofreading: Upon acceptance, articles will undergo professional copy editing for grammar, punctuation, style consistency, and formatting. Page proofs will be sent to the corresponding author for final review and must be returned within three days, indicating any necessary corrections.
  9. Role of the Corresponding Author: Throughout the submission and review process, the corresponding author (or a designated co-author) will serve as the primary point of contact between the author team and the editorial office.
  10. Commitment to Double-Blind Review: AIJAMAY adheres strictly to the principles of double-blind peer review, ensuring that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This commitment promotes unbiased evaluation and strengthens the integrity of the published research.