Peer Reviewing of articles is an essential part of the publishing process for scholarly work, and is employed by all reputable scientific journals. It is an objective double blind process that often provides useful feedback to authors and ensures that their work is presented in the best possible way. The Editorial Board of JAHSSP would like to take this opportunity of publicly thanking our referees, past, present and future, for giving us their valuable time and for their vital contribution to the success of this journal.

Initial Screening:  Each manuscript is reviewed by the related Editor in Chief Board, who may suggest one of the Editorial Board members if the paper passes the initial evaluation. Authors of papers rejected at this stage will be informed within two weeks of submission.

Reasons for being rejected in this phase

• Lacking innovation
• Having fundamental shortcomings in terms of topic and problem compilation
• Lacking valid research method.
• Being published with a rather different structure in this journal or other(s).

Second Screening: The assigned Editor who may suggest referees if the paper passes evaluation in this stage. Authors of papers rejected at this stage will be informed within about four weeks of submission.

Reviewing Process: The Editor may seek the advice of up to three referees, from among experts in the field of specialization of the paper. Referees are asked to comment on the originality and scientific correctness of the work, and to note deviations from appropriate ethical guidelines, lack of references to the available literature, etc. A referee may recommend acceptance, perhaps following minor corrections; acceptance conditional on the successful completion of a more extensive revision; re-evaluation following a major revision that may involve extensions to the original manuscript; or rejection. The time taken by the reviewing process will vary, depending on such factors as the availability of appropriate referees, the number and nature of any requested revisions, etc., but every effort is made to complete this process as quickly as possible.

Confidentiality: The reviewing process is conducted in strict confidence and the identity of a referee is not disclosed to the authors at any point.

Final Decision: At the completion of the reviewing process the Editor in Chief Board recommend their comments to the Editor in Chief, who makes the final decision to accept or reject the article. This decision is communicated to the corresponding author, together with any remaining feedback from the referees.