Editorial Guidelines

Introduction

The role of an editor at Access to Justice in the Middle East is fundamental to upholding the journal's academic integrity, quality, and ethical standards. Editors serve as the gatekeepers of scholarship, and this position carries significant ethical responsibilities to our authors, peer reviewers, readers, and the wider research community. The following guidelines outline the best practices and ethical standards for all members of the AJME editorial team, drawing from authoritative sources including:

·                The COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, for new editors and others

·                The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (a joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME)

·                The EASE Guidelines, Checklists, and resources for editors https://ease.org.uk/publications/ease-toolkit-for-editors/

 

Adherence to these guidelines is mandatory for all editors. Editors are expected to consult with the Editor-in-Chief on any complex or ambiguous ethical cases to ensure the consistent application of these principles across the journal.

 

General Ethical Principles for Editors

All members of the AJME editorial team are required to adhere to the following core principles in every aspect of their work:

1.              Accountability and Responsibility:

Editors are ultimately responsible for the entire content of the journal. They must strive to ensure the quality and integrity of the work they publish and be accountable for it.

2.              Fairness and Impartiality:

Editors must evaluate manuscripts based solely on their intellectual and academic merit (originality, importance, clarity, and validity) without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or political philosophy.

3.              Confidentiality:

Editors and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not disclose any information about a submission to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

4.              Rigorous Management of Conflicts of Interest:

Editors must have a clear and enforced policy for managing their own potential conflicts of interest as well as those of authors, reviewers, and other editorial staff. Submissions from members of the editorial team or their close colleagues must be handled by an independent editor to ensure an unbiased evaluation, as detailed in our workflow below.

5.              Integrity of the Peer Review Process:

Editors are responsible for the selection of qualified, impartial, and expert peer reviewers. They must ensure that the peer review process is fair, timely, and constructive, and they must protect the anonymity of reviewers and authors under our double-anonymized review model.

6.              Informed Decision-Making:

Final editorial decisions should be based on the manuscript's quality and the reviewers' reports, but they are not bound by them. Editors must exercise their own judgment and are empowered to reject a manuscript even with positive reviews if they have serious concerns about its integrity or quality. All decisions must be communicated clearly and constructively.

7.              Upholding the Scholarly Record:

Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or are made aware of a significant error in a published article. They must follow COPE guidelines to investigate concerns and are obligated to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

 

Editorial and Peer Review Process in AJME

AJME is an Open Access Journal which supports online submission and a double-anonymized peer review system. Our editorial workflow is designed to maintain academic rigor and integrity through clearly defined responsibilities and oversight at each stage.

 

AJME Editorial Workflow on OJS

 

1. Submission and Initial Screening

 All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief. Based on the subject area, the EiC assigns the manuscript to an appropriate Managing Editor and/or Section Editor.

For submissions involving AJME staff members (including the EiC, Managing Editors, Section Editors, or Board members), the handling is reassigned to an external or non-conflicted editor to manage the process independently. In the case of submissions by the EiC, a Deputy Editor-in-Chief and two members of the Editorial Board are appointed to manage the review and make the final publication decision. The EiC does not participate in any editorial decisions regarding their own work.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening, which includes an originality check using iThenticate plagiarism detection software. The journal also reserves the right to screen manuscripts using AI detection tools to ensure compliance with our policies on authorship and transparency.

 

2. Peer Review Handling 

The assigned editor (AE) is responsible for:

·                Verifying that the manuscript is fully anonymized for double-anonymized peer review.

·                Inviting appropriate peer reviewers based on subject matter expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and diversity of perspectives.

·                While authors may suggest potential peer reviewers, the final decision on reviewer selection is made by the Assigned Editor to ensure a balanced and fair process. Feedback from reviewers forms the foundation for editorial decisions but does not obligate the editor to a specific outcome.

 

3. Editorial Decision-Making Process 

After receiving the peer reviews, the Assigned Editor (AE):

·                Carefully evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and the manuscript’s overall quality.

·                Prepares a detailed recommendation (acceptance, revision, or rejection), with a clear justification.

·                Forwards the recommendation to the Decision-Making Editor. In most cases, the AE serves as the Decision-Making Editor; however, in cases of potential conflict of interest (e.g., a submission from a colleague), the decision must be made by a designated, non-conflicted editor to ensure impartiality.

The Decision-Making Editor makes the final decision and communicates it to the author. All editorial decisions are documented and recorded through OJS to ensure traceability and accountability.

 

4. Publication Transparency and Editorial Roles Disclosure 

At Access to Justice in the Middle East, we are committed to transparency. Each published article includes a disclosure of:

·                The Assigned Managing Editor and/or Section Editor.

·                The Decision-Making Editor (if different).

·                Language Editors.

·                Key publication dates (submission, acceptance, publication).

·                Any tools used during the editorial process (e.g., iThenticate, AI-assisted tools).

·                The number of review rounds and reports.

In cases where AJME staff are authors, an explicit note is added to confirm that the editorial process was handled independently.

 

5. Reviewer Development and Participation 

AJME offers a professional development track for reviewers. Those who demonstrate consistent, high-quality work may be invited to join the journal as Managing Editors or members of the Editorial Board.

 

Editorial and Peer Review Process in AJME

AJME is an Open Access Journal which supports online submission and a double-anonymized peer review system. These are the requirements to be followed by the authors while submitting, reviewing, editing and other actions within the publishing process. 

The best practice of international publishing community was used for these requirements: “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing” and EASE Guidelines, Checklists and Tools.

 

Publication Transparency and Editorial Roles Disclosure

At Access to Justice in the Middle East, we are committed to transparency and editorial integrity. Each published article includes a disclosure of the key individuals and tools involved in the editorial process. Specifically, we indicate:

1.The Assigned Managing Editor, 

2.Language Editors,

3.The Section Editor (if applicable),

4.The Decision-Making Editor (if different from AE), 

5.The language editing tools, and/or AI-assisted tools (e.g., ChatGPT, iThenticate) and/or any technical tools used during the editorial process, if applicable.

 

In addition, we publicly disclose the following publication details:

1.Date of submission and acceptance of the article.

2.Online First publication (if applicable).

3.Date of final publication.

4.Fast-track status.

5.Number of reviewer reports submitted in the first round.

6.Number of revision rounds. 

In cases where AJME staff are involved as authors, an explicit note is added to confirm that the editorial process was handled independently by a designated, non-conflicted editor or editorial board team.

 

Reviewers’ and Editors’ Development and Participation

AJME offers a professional development track for reviewers and editors. Those who demonstrate consistency and commitment may be invited to join as Managing Editors or Editorial Board members. Reviewers are expected to uphold academic integrity, confidentiality, and new AJME’s peer review policies.