Receipt of Manuscript Review Process and Revisions. Each manuscript will be acknowledged via e-mail in the order perceived. The acknowledgment will note the number assigned to the manuscript; this number should be referenced during all subsequent communications about the manuscript. JRAM uses a double-blind review, which means the identities of the reviewer is concealed from the author and vice verse.However, in some cases and according to editor in chief decision Peer Review Process rarely could be single-blind (The author does not know the identity of the reviewer) but it is absolutely forbidden to be an Open Peerreview Usually two and sometimes several reviewers will participate in the review of a manuscript. Re-review may be required after revision if, in the judgment of the editor, sufficient modification of the manuscript or data justifies another review cycle The journal absolutely forbids an open peer review (where the identity of the author and the reviewer is known by all participants, during or after the review process).

Reviewer guidelines:

Points to consider by reviewers:

-The reviewer should agree or decline within 5 days on receiving the invitation

-In case of declining a review invitation, please include a reason directed to journal especially if it is due to not being in area of expertise to be able to consider by journal in future invitations.

-Accepting a review invitation the reviewer has a time of 15 days to review and submit the revision. It is preferable to be submitted before the maximum allowed time (15 days).

-In case the reviewer requires extra time before 15 days end, the editorial staff could be informed by a letter sent to editorial office ( JRAM@gmail.com )

-After the allowed time provided to a reviewer in the invitation for any article’s revision (15 days), the system will automatically move the reviewer status to (Reviewers Not Reviewed Manuscript in Review Due Date). In this case reviewer could receive a letter from the editorial board that his/her services are no longer required to review the manuscript.

-A reviewer’s decision with comments is important in the decision-making process for the editor and the revision process for the author.

-Constructive Comments to authors aim to help the author to improve the quality of the work even if he is not to going to publish in the journal.

-On reviewing the article and submission of review before the deadline the reviewer achieves a Revision Certificate which can be downloaded from the reviewer’s page also an immediate record at Publons profile.