The journal follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process. All manuscripts received undergo a preliminary review at the level of editor/associate editor. If considered suitable, it is forwarded to an expert reviewer, after blanking out the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s). During peer review, all manuscripts are considered privileged communications; copying them, showing them to anyone, and discussing personal evaluations or recommendations are prohibited without approval of JIACM’s editorial office.  Manuscripts are to be destroyed after the review is completed.  Peer reviewers also are asked to report immediately to the editors any possible personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with authors or related to the topic; when a conflict exists, JIACM then find another reviewer in their place.

Once the comments of the reviewer are received, these are then passed on to the author(s) after blanking out the name of the referee. Using peer reviews and their own judgment, the editors decide whether to reject a manuscript or that it requires revision(s) - major or minor.

The decision is then communicated to the authors in a letter that puts forth questions raised in the review process and recommends the revisions needed to meet the standards for publication.  Authors respond with a revised manuscript and letter detailing the changes.  When the manuscript is returned by the author, the editor reviews the revised manuscript and decides whether further peer review is needed. The editor reviews the final submission and may raise further questions.  The editor’s formal acceptance sends an article into manuscript editing (for copyediting) and production.

Thus, highest standards, utmost confidentiality and impartiality is maintained in the peer-review process.