Peer Review Policy
All manuscripts submitted to AGPM will follow the following procedures:
1. The initial submission is reviewed by in-house editors to ensure adherence to journal policies and for a double-blind peer review.
2. Editor-in-chief decides on the manuscript to be sent out for review process and assigns the manuscript to one of the editors according to the particular topic.
3. The editor assigns reviewers from inside the editorial board or outside depending on the topic.
4. After evaluations by the reviewers have been received, the editor-in-chief makes one of the following recommendations: Accept Submission; Revisions Required; Resubmit for Review and Decline Submission.
5. If the decision is Revisions Required, the authors have three weeks to resubmit the revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts must contain a detailed point by point response to the comments of the reviewers. The response to reviewers has to be uploaded as a separate file.
6. If the decision is Resubmit for Review, the authors have two weeks to resubmit the manuscript. After resubmission, the same procedures as for the initial submission applies.
7. Authors may appeal for a rejected submission. Appeal requests must be made in writing to firstname.lastname@example.org with detailed reasons for the appeal and point by point responses to the reviewer’s remarks.
8. For all manuscripts accepted for publication, the peer review process will be deemed to be completed. The manuscript will proceed to be copyedited，layout edited and proofread before being published online.
Note: The author may suggest up to three academically qualified reviewers for consideration. Please insert the current contact details of the reviewer and state the reason(s) for recommendation under the "Comments for the Editor" section. However, please take note that the Editorial team strives to ensure the peer review process is fair, unbiased and hence, there is no guarantee that a recommended reviewer will be approached to perform the peer review.