Obligations of Editors and Reviewers in the AMS Scientific Publication Process

Obligations of Editors in the AMS Scientific Publication Process

  1. An editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its own merits without regard to the author’s race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.  All authors should be treated with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, and honesty.
  2. An editor must protect the confidentiality of all reviewers unless the reviewer reveals their identity to the author.
  3. An editor should process manuscripts promptly.
  4. The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The editor may confer informally with associate editors or reviewers for an evaluation of the work to use in making this decision.
  5. Editors must provide reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal's expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews to promote thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of submitted work.
  6. The editor and the editorial staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers. Editors and editorial staff must not submit manuscripts to any third-party software application not licensed for use by AMS. Reviews and reviewer identity can be shared with other Editors of AMS journals if the author consents to having the paper transferred. It is contrary to AMS publications policy for editors to release reviews or reviewers' identity to editors of non-AMS journals.
  7. An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
  8. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored (or coauthored) by an editor and submitted to the editor's journal should be delegated to some other qualified person, such as another editor of that journal. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If an editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility.
  9. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has a close professional relationship, and from those in the same institution. Any financial arrangement with sponsors that could lead to the appearance of an editorial conflict of interest should be disclosed to the Publications Commissioner.
  10. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research except with the consent of the author or after the work has been published.
  11. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in an editor's journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.

Obligations of Reviewers in the AMS Scientific Publication Process

  1. Because of the critical importance of peer-review to the publication process, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
  2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should indicate it promptly to the editor.
  3. A chosen reviewer who declines an invitation may recommend other potential reviewers to the editor, but should not discuss the invitation with these potential reviewers because invitations to review should be treated as confidential information.
  4. A reviewer should endeavor to complete the review in a timely fashion. Reviewers should promptly notify the editor if the review cannot be completed by the time frame agreed upon with the editor.
  5. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.
  6. A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should indicate the potential conflict promptly to the editor.
  7. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a close personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
  8. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
  9. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  10. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper, or to any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
  11. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.
  12. Reviewers are not allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or take advantage of the knowledge they gained by reviewing it until it is published or by consent of the author.
  13. The peer review process is vital to scientific publishing and operates on the basis of mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors. AI-based systems cannot provide the expertise and judgment required to prepare an unbiased summary of the pros and cons of a manuscript, undermining trust. Nor can AI systems explain the reasoning behind their evaluations, making a scholarly exchange of ideas impossible. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer-review process. This principle would be violated if any or all of a manuscript were to be uploaded to an AI tool, even one labeled as a "safe AI tool."

    To preserve the integrity of peer review and the confidentiality of manuscripts, AMS peer reviewers are thus prohibited from using AI tools to evaluate manuscripts and prepare review reports, with the following exception: The use of AI tools to edit a review report for language and clarity is permitted, but the use of such tools must be declared fully and transparently in the peer review report.

     

Related Information