Review Process
Overview
The American Journal of Law & Human Rights (AJEIA) follows a **double-blind peer-review** process to maintain fairness and scientific integrity. In this process, both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous, ensuring unbiased evaluation.
Steps
Step: Initial Editorial Screening
Description: Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo a preliminary review by the editorial office to assess completeness, adherence to formatting guidelines, and relevance to the journal's scope. Manuscripts that fail this check may be returned to the authors for revisions or outright rejection.
Step: Assignment to Reviewers
Description: If the manuscript passes the editorial screening, it is assigned to at least **two independent subject-matter reviewers** who are experts in the field. Reviewers are selected based on expertise, research focus, and lack of conflicts of interest.
Step: Double-Blind Peer Review
Description: Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, methodology, significance, clarity, and ethical considerations. They provide detailed feedback, recommendations (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject), and comments for authors.
Step: Author Revisions
Description: If revisions are required, the authors will receive reviewer comments and a deadline for resubmission. Revised manuscripts must include a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ concerns.
Step: Final Editorial Decision
Description: The revised manuscript is reviewed again by the editorial team (and sometimes by reviewers for major revisions). Based on the revised content and responses, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision (Accept, Reject, or Further Revisions Required).
Step: Copyediting & Proofreading
Description: Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes professional copyediting, proofreading, and formatting before publication.
Step: Publication & DOI Assignment
Description: The final version is published online as an **Open Access** article with a **Digital Object Identifier (DOI)** for citation and indexing.
Review Criteria
Criterion: Originality
Description: Does the manuscript contribute **new knowledge, innovation, or a novel approach** in engineering applications?
Criterion: Technical Rigor
Description: Are the **methodology, experiments, and results scientifically sound, reproducible, and well-documented?**
Criterion: Clarity & Structure
Description: Is the manuscript **clearly written, well-structured, and formatted** according to journal guidelines?
Criterion: Relevance to Journal Scope
Description: Does the study align with the **journal's scope and target audience?**
Criterion: Ethical Standards
Description: Has the research been conducted ethically with **proper citations, data integrity, and disclosure of conflicts of interest?**
Review Timeline
Editorial Screening: 3-5 days
Peer Review: 3-4 weeks
Revision Time: 2-3 weeks (for minor revisions) or 4-6 weeks (for major revisions)
Final Decision: 1-2 weeks after resubmission
Publication After Acceptance: 7-10 days
Reviewer Guidelines
Expectations:
- Provide **objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback**.
- Maintain **confidentiality** and do not share manuscript content.
- Identify **strengths, weaknesses, and areas of improvement**.
- Ensure that references and citations are **properly used and acknowledged**.
- Report any suspected **plagiarism or ethical violations**.
Reviewer Recognition:
- Reviewers receive an official **Certificate of Review Contribution**.
- Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the **Editorial Board**.
- Top reviewers are eligible for **discounts on Article Processing Charges (APC)**.