Double-Blind Peer Review
The purpose of double-blind peer review is to guarantee that published research is of high quality. It is the bedrock of all reputable research publications and serves as an unbiased assessment at the core of effective scholarly publishing. This rigorous process ensures that the merits of a research manuscript are evaluated based on its content and methodology, rather than on the author’s reputation, affiliations, or any potential biases. As a result, our reviewers play a critical role in upholding the Aathiyoga Indian Journal of Ancient Medicine and Yoga (IJAMAY)’s high standards. Their expertise and impartial judgment are essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the journal’s published work. All unsolicited manuscripts are subjected to peer review in accordance with the guidelines described below.
Initial manuscript evaluation – All manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editors. This initial screening serves as a triage, quickly identifying manuscripts that clearly do not meet the journal’s requirements. It’s uncommon, but it’s possible that excellent work will be accepted at this point, particularly if it addresses a timely and significant issue within the journal’s scope and is impeccably presented. For instance, a groundbreaking study with clear methodology and impactful results directly aligned with the journal’s focus on ancient medicine and yoga might be fast-tracked. Those who are rejected at this stage typically have major scientific problems, such as a flawed experimental design, unsupported conclusions, or inadequate data analysis. Alternatively, the manuscript might simply be outside the journal’s purpose and scope; for example, a paper focusing solely on modern pharmaceutical interventions would not be suitable for the IJAMAY. Those that fulfil the basic requirements, demonstrating potential merit and relevance, are sent to at least two specialists for evaluation. Authors of submissions that are rejected at this stage will be notified within two weeks of receipt or will be given recommendations for re-submission from reviewers, perhaps suggesting a different journal that aligns better with the manuscript’s focus.
Without going through the regular peer review process, manuscripts containing plagiarism, significant highly technical errors, or a lack of a relevant message are rejected. Plagiarism, which is the act of presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, is a serious ethical violation in academic publishing and immediately disqualifies a manuscript. For example, if large portions of a submitted article are found to be directly copied from previously published works without proper citation, it will be rejected outright. Similarly, manuscripts with significant technical errors, such as fundamental flaws in statistical analysis or misinterpretation of key concepts, demonstrate a lack of rigor that prevents meaningful evaluation. Imagine a study on the effects of yoga on blood pressure that uses an inappropriate statistical test for its data, leading to unreliable conclusions – such a manuscript would likely be rejected. Furthermore, manuscripts lacking a clear and relevant message or contribution to the field are unlikely to progress. A paper that simply reiterates previously established knowledge without offering new insights or perspectives does not contribute to scholarly discourse. Manuscripts that do not fall within the scope of the Journal may also be rejected at this stage. As an illustration, a detailed analysis of a surgical procedure, while potentially valuable in its own right, would be outside the scope of a journal dedicated to ancient medicine and yoga.
Final Acceptance – The author will be notified of the final decision to accept or reject the submission, as well as any recommendations provided by the reviewers, which may include direct remarks from the reviewers. These remarks can range from minor suggestions for improvement in clarity to major concerns about the methodology or interpretation of results.
If an author desires to appeal a peer review decision, he or she should write to the Editors-in-Chief and discuss the problem. Appeals will be successful only if the reviews were insufficient or unjust. For instance, if a reviewer clearly misunderstood a crucial aspect of the methodology or demonstrated a clear bias against a particular theoretical framework, an appeal might be warranted. If this is the case, the document will be submitted to new reviewers who have agreed to re-review it, ensuring a fair and impartial reassessment.
After receiving comments from reviewers/Referees, members of the Editorial Board teams have the authority to make the final decision on publication. The editorial board, comprised of experts in the field, considers the reviewers’ feedback and the author’s responses to make an informed judgment. The corresponding author will be notified of the acceptance, rejection, or amendment of the paper. This final decision often involves weighing the reviewers’ assessments against the overall significance and potential impact of the research.
If there are any minor or large changes, the corresponding author should send an orderly response to each of the reviewers’ comments and a revised version of the manuscript to the editor. This iterative process of revision and response is crucial for improving the quality and clarity of the published work. For example, if a reviewer suggests providing more detailed explanations of the statistical methods used, the author would need to address this specific point in their response and provide the necessary detail in the revised manuscript.
The paper will not be accepted for publication until it has been approved by the editor and reviewers/referees. This signifies that the manuscript has met the journal’s rigorous standards for scientific validity, clarity, and contribution to the field.
Articles would be copy-edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format if they were accepted. This stage ensures consistency and professionalism in the final published version. Page proofs will be given to the appropriate author and must be returned within three days, with or without corrections. This allows the authors to make final checks for any errors introduced during the typesetting process.
During the submission and review process, the corresponding author (or coauthor designated) will act as the primary correspondent with the editorial office on behalf of all co-authors. This streamlines communication and ensures efficient management of the review process.
The journal carefully adheres to the double-blind review method, in which neither the author nor the reviewer is aware of the other’s identity. This anonymity is paramount in mitigating potential biases. For example, a reviewer might be inclined to treat a manuscript differently if they knew it was authored by a prominent figure in the field or, conversely, an unknown researcher. By concealing identities, the focus remains solely on the quality and merit of the research itself, fostering a truly objective evaluation. This commitment to double-blind review strengthens the integrity of the IJAMAY and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in ancient medicine and yoga.
