Pre-check:
Upon manuscript submission, the Managing Editor conducts a preliminary technical review to evaluate:
- The manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, section, or special issue;
- Compliance with ethical standards and the overall quality of the research;
- Scientific rigor to determine its suitability for further evaluation.
Following this, the Academic Editor—typically the Editor-in-Chief (for regular submissions), a Guest Editor (for special issues), or a designated Editorial Board member in cases involving a conflict of interest—will be informed and invited to perform an editorial pre-assessment. This evaluation covers the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s thematic focus, the scientific validity of the content, the appropriateness of references, and the soundness of the applied methodology. Based on this assessment, the Academic Editor may reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or initiate the peer review process and suggest appropriate reviewers.
Peer Review:
If the manuscript successfully passes the initial checks, it is then forwarded for evaluation by a minimum of two independent peer review. The journal adopts a single-blind review model, wherein the reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but the authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. Review feedback is treated as confidential and will only be disclosed with the reviewers’ explicit permission.
For regular submissions, the in-house editorial staff will extend invitations to qualified reviewers, considering suggestions provided by the Academic Editor. These may include Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors. Author-recommended reviewers may also be considered, provided they have not co-published with any of the manuscript’s authors in the past three years and are not currently affiliated with the same institutions.
Optional Open Peer Review
The journal offers an optional open peer review system. Authors may choose to have all reviewer reports and editorial decisions published alongside the final article. Reviewers also have the option to sign their reports, revealing their identity within the published feedback. Authors can update their preference for open peer review at any stage before the article is published. After publication, any modifications to this choice require approval from the Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher. Authors are encouraged to use this feature to enhance transparency and credibility in the peer review process. The identity of reviewers will only be disclosed if they consent to it, and only after the manuscript has been accepted for publication.
Editorial Decision and Revision
All submissions-original articles, reviews, or communications published in the EJMAP journal go through peer review and receive at least two independent evaluations. Based on these, the in-house editor will relay the Academic Editor’s decision, which can be one of the following:
The paper is conditionally accepted pending minor corrections. Authors typically have five days to submit revisions.
Acceptance is contingent upon significant revisions. Authors must respond point-by-point to reviewer feedback or justify why certain changes are not feasible. A maximum of two rounds of major revisions is allowed. Revised submissions are sent back to reviewers for further evaluation.
If additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions, the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.
All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.
Author Appeals
Authors have the right to appeal for a rejection by submitting a formal request via email to the journal’s Editorial Office. Using the designated appeal form, the appeal must include detailed justification and point-by-point responses to reviewers’ or the Editor’s comments. Appeals are only permitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” outcome and must be submitted within three months of the decision date. Appeals that do not meet these requirements will not be considered. The managing editor will forward the appeal, related materials, and reviewer identities to a designated editorial board member. The consulted academic editor will review the case and may recommend further peer review or acceptance or uphold the original rejection. The final decision, endorsed by the editor-in-chief, is irreversible.
Production and Publication:
Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo professional copy-editing, English editing, proofreading by the authors, final corrections, pagination, and publication on the website.
Typically, it is not permissible for authors to change the main text after acceptance (except for layout, English grammar, etc.). If authors would like to revise the main text, authors should inform the journal editorial office and state their reasons. Then, another round of academic decisions will be made based on the manuscript and the authors’ responses.