Please note that JAMS is now accepting article submissions through Scholastica at https://jams.scholasticahq.com/. Authors will need to login using an existing Scholastica account or create a new one in order to submit.
Our guidelines for all submissions—including articles, colloquies, and reviews of scholarly work in print and digital formats—can be found here.
About the Double-Blind Peer Review Process
The double-blind peer review process is of paramount importance to the Journal. We hold that it functions well only when all parties act in a collaborative spirit of good faith and mutual respect.
- Peer review is facilitated by the Journal. The process is double-blind, and the Editorial Team mediates all interactions between reviewers and authors.
- Peer reviews are not published, and the review is owned by the author of the peer review.
After the Editorial Team has consulted the peer reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will provide the submitting author with a decision and blinded copies of the peer reviews. An initial submission can receive one of the following three decisions: Accept with Revisions; Revise and Resubmit; or Reject.
If an author receives a “Revise and Resubmit,” the revised manuscript will undergo a second round of peer review. During this process, the Journal attempts to engage at least one original reader and one new reader. In the case that no original readers are available, two new readers will be engaged. A resubmission can receive one of the following decisions: Accept with Revisions or Reject. Authors are allowed only one opportunity for revision of their original manuscript.
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review and for Reviews to be Printed in the Journal
JAMS adheres to the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set forth by the AMS Committee on Publication Ethics (see section II). According to these standards:
Peer reviewers will:
- Treat article manuscripts and all communications with JAMS related to peer review work as strictly confidential. This includes refraining from commenting on the manuscript on social media and in conversations with colleagues, publishing or circulating any part of an unpublished manuscript, and making use of original research without permission.
- Disclose potential conflicts of interest and commit to remaining unbiased in their assessments. A peer reviewer may offer to reveal their identity to the author, in which case the Editorial Team will confer with both reviewer and author before establishing contact.
- Provide professional critique in a constructive manner that recognizes the humanity of the submitting author.
Authors of article submissions will:
- Treat peer reviews as confidential correspondence. Although it is common practice for an author to consult with a colleague or mentor about responding to peer reviews, the content of reviews should not be circulated or published, including on social media, unless an author receives permission to do so from the peer reviewer, through the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editorial Team and Editorial Board will:
- Hold reviews and decisions in confidence. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with the Associate Editor and members of the Editorial Board, who are bound to hold those consultations in the same confidence.
- Reserve the right to edit peer reviews for tone, clarity, and concision, and for the protection of the reviewer’s anonymity.
Authors of commissioned reviews for publication in the Journal will:
- Maintain the highest standards of scholarly integrity and collegiality. Reviews containing ad hominem comments or attacks, whether expressed directly or obliquely, will not be tolerated. The editorial team may return reviews containing such content to the reviewer for revision or may reject the review outright.
- Immediately disclose any conflict of interest, very broadly defined, before accepting the commission. Conflicts of interest shall be understood to encompass personal conflict with the author of the work under review; prior relationship with the author that goes beyond normal scholarly acquaintance; appearance of the reviewer’s name in the "Acknowledgments" section of the work under review; agreement or intent to review the same work in another publication; endorsement of the same work in another public venue; and any other factor that may make it difficult to produce a review at arm’s length. Members of the AMS Board and Editorial Board of the Journal may not have their work reviewed in JAMS while serving in those capacities.
- Represent the reviewed material accurately and fairly. Accuracy and fairness are essential in all cases, including those in which the reviewer reveals errors in the work under review or disagrees with its argumentation.
- Refrain from language that could be construed as unprofessional, including remarks of a prejudiced, sarcastic, or gendered nature. Such language will not be permitted to appear in the Journal.
- Engage constructively with the work under review. Scholarly fields such as ours thrive on critical debate in which all parties view one another’s work with respect. Reviews should seek to advance the field—not to pursue a personal agenda. JAMS relies on the assistance of experts to offer balanced and learned opinions on recent scholarship, while maintaining the highest level of civility in any criticisms.
It is the policy of the Journal that publication of any review is contingent on final approval by the Review Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.
The JAMS Editorial Board expects all parties to follow the guidelines above regarding confidentiality and ethical behavior, which are in keeping with recommendations for best practices from the Association of University Presses and shared by our sister societies.