AJRMHS aims to publish only original papers and therefore strongly rejects the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. Submission of a manuscript to this journal indicates that the study has not been published nor been submitted to any other journal for publication. If author(s) use any part of a published paper (in English or any other language), they should give a proper reference or where required, get permission from the previous publisher or copyright holder (whichever applies).  Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after an internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors, their affiliated institutes and funding agency and the paper will be retracted.


AJRMHS supports publication of articles that are technically sound, and relevant to current medicine and health. Therefore, all papers that are peer-reviewed and found to be technically sound could be published. Papers should not be rejected solely based on considerations of novelty.

Reviewers are encouraged to be honest and but not offensive in their language and comments. Be polite and cordial (Unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors' discretion). Comments should be constructive, suggesting how authors can strengthen their manuscript to make it acceptable. We strongly advise that a negative review should also clearly explain the weaknesses of that article or research, so that the concerned authors can understand the reason(s) for rejection of their manuscript and improve it based on those comments. Authors should not misconstrue frank and accurate comments as unfair criticism. Reviewers’ comments should be sufficiently detailed and clear, to help reach an Editorial decision.

Technical experts in the relevant field are selected as reviewers; therefore, we respect their comments and suggestions. Authors are therefore advised to treat the suggestions of reviewers with utmost importance.

Reviewers should assess the manuscripts as follows:

  • Plagiarism

Do you suspect any unethical practice in the research manuscript? If so, please clearly indicate it in your report with specifics and other supporting documents or links as necessary.

  • Materials & methods

How suitable and appropriate are the technical standards of the methodology employed? Sufficient details of the methods/process should be provided so that another researcher can reproduce the process). Are the statistical methods appropriate?

  • Results & discussion

Are the data well presented and robust?

Discussion should be based on actual facts and figures from the results of the study. Biased claims should be pointed out.

Authors should provide relevant and current references during discussion.

  • Conclusion

Is the conclusion based on the data derived from the results of the study as discussed in the manuscript? Conclusions should not be biased.

  • References

Are all the references cited relevant, current, adequate and in Vancouver style? You may suggest if there are other suitable current references the authors need to cite?

  • Appeal: There is no approved process for appeal of rejected papers