Guidelines for Reviewers

The Asian Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) appreciates the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the scholarly quality and integrity of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, constructive, and confidential assessments of submitted manuscripts.

1. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their relevant academic expertise, research experience, subject knowledge, and suitability for the manuscript.

The journal seeks reviewers who can provide an impartial and informed assessment of the submitted work.

Reviewers should not accept an assignment if they have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript or review materials with others without authorization.

  • Discuss the manuscript with third parties.

  • Disclose the identity of the authors where the double-anonymous review process applies.

  • Use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should destroy or appropriately delete manuscript files and confidential materials after completing the review when instructed by the journal.

3. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and respectful.

Reviewers should focus on the scholarly content of the manuscript and should not make comments based on an author's nationality, religion, gender, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, or other irrelevant considerations.

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

4. Scholarly Assessment

Reviewers should assess, where applicable:

  • Originality and significance of the research

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of AJQR

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives

  • Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework

  • Adequacy of the research methodology

  • Quality and interpretation of evidence or data

  • Coherence of analysis and discussion

  • Accuracy and appropriateness of conclusions

  • Quality and relevance of references

  • Organization and clarity of presentation

  • Compliance with relevant ethical requirements

Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity or contribution of the research and minor issues that can be corrected during revision.

5. Research Ethics

Reviewers should alert the editorial team to concerns relating to possible research misconduct, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, duplicate publication, or other serious ethical issues.

Reviewers should not make allegations of misconduct without providing relevant evidence or a clear explanation of the concern.

6. References and Citations

Reviewers may recommend relevant literature that has been omitted where such literature is genuinely necessary for the scholarly development of the manuscript.

Reviewers should not request citations solely to increase their own citation counts or the citations of a particular journal, author, or institution.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or completing a review.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • A recent or ongoing collaboration with the author

  • A close personal or professional relationship

  • Direct competition involving closely related unpublished research

  • A financial or institutional interest

  • Any other circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality

Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

8. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete their assessments within the timeframe requested by the journal.

If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editorial team as soon as possible.

If a reviewer cannot complete the assessment, the reviewer should decline promptly so that the journal can seek an alternative reviewer.

9. Artificial Intelligence and Confidentiality

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript content into generative AI systems or other external tools where confidentiality may be compromised.

Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality and integrity of their review.

Where the use of any automated or AI-assisted tool is permitted by the journal, it must comply with the journal's AI Policy and applicable confidentiality requirements.

10. Review Recommendation

Reviewers may provide a recommendation such as:

  • Accept

  • Minor revisions

  • Major revisions

  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by clear scholarly reasoning.

The recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the authorized editor(s) of AJQR.

11. Constructive Feedback

A useful review should identify both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and provide practical suggestions for improvement.

Reviewers should explain major criticisms clearly and, where possible, indicate how the authors may address them.

12. Reviewer Anonymity

AJQR normally operates a double-anonymous peer-review process. Reviewers should therefore avoid including information in their report that unnecessarily reveals their identity.

13. Reviewer Recognition

AJQR may maintain confidential records of completed peer reviews and may provide appropriate recognition of reviewers' contributions where consistent with confidentiality, ethical requirements, and journal policy.

14. Final Responsibility

Reviewers contribute expert advice to the editorial process but do not make the final publication decision.

The editorial team remains responsible for the final decision and for ensuring that the peer-review process is conducted fairly and consistently.

Journal: Asian Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR)
Peer-Review Model: Double-Anonymous Peer Review
Contact: editor@ajqr.ibexinstitute.org