Review Policies

Your role is critical in relaying trusted information as a reviewer for AAAFM Research Competitiveness Program (RCP).Scientific advancements rely on the communication of data that is trustworthy, and the process of peer review is a significant section of the system. For an in-depth analysis, three external referees will consulted. Reviewers are notified before a research proposalis sent out to them and are usually provided with a timeline of 1 – 2 weeks to complete the review. Reviewers maybe contacted to assess distinct sections of a research proposal. AAAFM now provides a chance of cross-review. Once all reviews are ready, you will be welcomed to read the other reviews and create more comments in two business days. Cross-review is not necessary. If there will be no comments, we will proceed grounded in the already reviewed manuscripts. In clear decisions, we may continue without cross-review, in these situations, other reviews will be sent to you for your information. We impressively appreciate the time dedicated in review preparation. You will be contacted for revision only if the paper still requires input, but the final decision regarding a submitted manuscript lies with the editor. Thank you for taking the time to prepare the review.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

  1. Objectivity: Reviews given should be an impartial analysis of the research. If you have subjective opinions about research, you should inform the editor so that the situation is handled. Any manner of conflict of interest including professional and financial affiliations or a record of personal disputes with the author should be described in the confidential comments.
  2. If a reviewer feels that he or she is not skilled enough to review particular research proposal and make a suitable judgment, he or she should inform the editor
  3. Constructive Valuation: Reviews should be courteous and constructive showing respect to the author’s intellectual independence and in compliance with high scientific and literacy standards. The reviewer should shun personal comments; AAAFM has the right to eliminate comments that will deter productive discussion of research proposals.
  4. Time Consciousness: Reviews should be submitted within the specified timelines, in case of unavoidable circumstances that affect the time, the reviewers should be prompt to inform the editor.
  5. Anonymity: AAAFM reviews are done anonymously, and the identity of reviewers is not disclosed to the proposals submitted agencies. The anonymity policy also covers the reviewer, who is not allowed to reveal to unveil his or her identity to the public or press. The review outcome can only be shared with the proposals submitted agencies or author (s) and maybe other peer reviewers or the board.
  6. Confidentiality: The submitted document must be treated confidentially and should not be shared with colleagues unless the editor authorizes. All copies of the manuscript must be destroyed after the review. Reviewers should not use the information or abstracts of it for their personal or professional consumption.
  7. Guidelines Adherence: Reviewers should know and apply all AAAFM’s research proposals guidelines regarding data availability and sharing, and conflict of interest.


Research Proposals: Research proposals should depict an innovation in a specific field and should be of exceptional or versatile interest to the specialist. They ought to be of robust interdisciplinary interest or strange interest to the expert.

Overall Recommendation: Make a general recommendation in your review, based on the mission statement above, on whether the submitted proposals is suitable for acceptance by AAAFM. Provide a detailed evaluation of the research proposals based on novelty, data, and technical rigor.

  • Technical Rigor: Assess whether, or to what level, the data and approaches validate the conclusions and clarifications. If suitable, indicate what extra data and information are required to do so.
  • Novelty: Note in your review if the conclusions are new or identical to work already published.
  • Data: The information appropriate to support, comprehend, and to lengthen the findings should be presented in the proposal or Supportive. Data presentation ought to follow concords in your field. Please remember to remark whether these conditions are achieved or specify how they can be.

Security: We ask reviewers to inform us if they have any concerns that the issue of this research proposal might pose a risk to public security, health, or safety. Such concerns will be brought to the responsiveness of the Editor-in-Chief for more evaluation.

Conflict of Interest: If you can’t be unprejudiced in your review of research proposals due to conflict of interest, please refrain from reviewing proposal and promptly notify us. Conflict of interest could be in the form of any financial or professional affiliations with the author or prior disputes.

Confidentiality: We anticipate safeguarding the privacy of the research proposal and confirming that it is not circulated or subjugated. Please destroy your copy of the document when you are through. Only discuss the research proposal with an associate with authorization from the editor. We do not reveal the individuality of our reviewers.