Peer Review Process
Journal of Arts, Meaning and Public Life (JAMPL) operates a rigorous editorial screening and peer-review process designed to ensure that published articles meet high standards of originality, scholarly quality, relevance, and ethical integrity.
Editorial Structure
The editorial structure of JAMPL consists of the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors. In addition, the journal is supported administratively by officers responsible for plagiarism screening and editorial workflow management. Such support roles do not make independent academic editorial decisions.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether it falls within the scope of the journal and meets the basic standards for consideration. At this stage, manuscripts that are clearly out of scope or unsuitable for the journal may be rejected without external review.
Where a manuscript is considered potentially suitable, it may be screened for similarity and other preliminary editorial concerns before being assigned for further consideration.
Plagiarism Screening and Editorial Processing
All submissions may be checked for similarity and possible ethical concerns as part of the preliminary editorial process. Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity levels, serious ethical concerns, or clear technical or presentational deficiencies may be rejected at this stage.
Where the manuscript passes the preliminary screening, the Editor-in-Chief assigns it to an Editor in the relevant subject area for further evaluation.
Editor Assessment
The assigned Editor evaluates the manuscript for scholarly soundness, originality, relevance, clarity, and compliance with the journal’s author guidelines. The Editor determines whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review.
The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript at this stage if it does not meet the scholarly or editorial standards of JAMPL.
Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening stage are sent for external peer review. JAMPL uses a single-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors unless a reviewer expressly agrees to reveal their identity.
Each submission is ordinarily reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript on the basis of originality, scholarly merit, methodological or interpretive rigor, clarity of presentation, relevance to the journal, and the strength of the argument or conclusions.
Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s assessment, the manuscript may be:
- accepted,
- accepted subject to minor revision,
- returned for major revision, or
- rejected.
A manuscript may also be rejected if the reviewers identify substantial weaknesses, limited originality, inadequate scholarly quality, poor presentation, or concerns about the reliability or credibility of the work.
Revised Manuscripts
When authors are invited to revise their manuscript, they must submit a revised version together with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, or the handling editor may evaluate the revisions directly, depending on the nature and extent of the changes.
A revised manuscript may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected if the concerns raised during peer review have not been adequately addressed.
Final Decision
The final decision on a manuscript rests with the Editor, based on the recommendations of the reviewers. Manuscripts may be rejected at any stage if they are found to be out of scope, insufficiently original, academically weak, ethically problematic, technically unreliable, or non-compliant with the journal’s standards.
In some cases, a manuscript may also be declined where repeated efforts to secure suitable reviewers are unsuccessful, suggesting that the work may not be well aligned with the journal’s audience or disciplinary focus.
Appeal
Authors may appeal a rejection decision by contacting the editorial office within 30 days of the decision notification.
Any appeal must include a clear and concise explanation of why the manuscript should be reconsidered, together with a point-by-point response to the issues raised by the editors and/or reviewers. Where applicable, the appeal should also include a revised manuscript showing substantive improvements. Appeals are considered carefully, but submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal of the original decision.
