Editorial and Peer Review Policy

All full manuscripts submitted to the Trans. AMMM undergo a thorough editorial evaluation and are subject to a rigorous single-blind peer review process. This process is designed to ensure the scientific integrity, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance of all published work.

Criteria for Publication

Research published in the journal must meet the following standards:

  • Scientific Validity: The research must conform to recognized disciplinary norms and community standards for study design, analysis, and interpretation.

  • Technical Accuracy: Methods must be appropriately applied and results must be presented with clarity, precision, and transparency.

  • Scholarly Value: The work should represent a meaningful scientific contribution, whether it advances a novel hypothesis, presents a replication study, or reports robust null or negative findings.

  • Reproducibility: Authors are encouraged to make underlying data, software code, protocols, and other supporting materials openly available, whenever feasible, to facilitate replication and verification by the broader research community.

  • Ethical and Transparent Conduct: Research must comply with established ethical guidelines, particularly concerning the use of human participants, animals, or hazardous materials. Ethical approval, informed consent, and a comprehensive declaration of potential conflicts of interest - both actual and perceived - must be provided.

Editorial Process

Upon submission, the assigned editor conducts an initial assessment to ensure that the manuscript meets basic editorial standards and aligns with the thematic scope of the journal. Manuscripts that pass this screening are typically sent for external peer review.

Two independent experts in the relevant field are invited to provide anonymous evaluations of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise, impartiality, and ability to offer constructive, evidence-based critiques.

Editorial decisions are based on a synthesis of reviewer feedback, the editor’s own assessment, and the manuscript’s adherence to the journal’s publication criteria. The editor retains final responsibility for all decisions, including acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Research Integrity and Oversight

In certain cases, particularly those involving complex ethical issues, potential dual-use research of concern, or broader societal implications, the Editors-in-Chief may consult additional subject-matter experts or internal ethics advisors. These consultations may lead to enhanced review procedures, such as:

  • Soliciting specialized reviewers;

  • Engaging additional editorial oversight;

  • Delaying or declining further consideration of the submission.

Such measures are taken to ensure that the journal upholds the highest standards of research integrity and responsibility in scholarly publishing.

Commitment to Open Science

Aligned with our commitment to open science and research transparency, the journal does not prioritize manuscripts based on perceived novelty, interest, or anticipated citation impact. We actively encourage the submission of replication studies, particularly those evaluating previously published findings within this journal.

Manuscript Lifecycle

A typical manuscript proceeds through the following stages:

  1. Initial editorial screening for scope and compliance.

  2. Assignment to an academic editor with subject-matter expertise.

  3. Peer review by at least two anonymous reviewers.

  4. Editorial decision, which may include acceptance, revision requests, or rejection.

  5. Copy Editing, production and publication, following final approval.

.