Peer Review Policy

The Asian Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) uses a Double-Anonymous Peer Review process for scholarly manuscripts submitted for publication.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is used to evaluate the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, clarity, and ethical standards of submitted manuscripts. The process helps the journal maintain academic integrity and improve the quality of published research.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.

The editorial assessment may consider:

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of AJQR

  • Originality and scholarly contribution

  • Academic and methodological quality

  • Compliance with the journal's submission requirements

  • Ethical considerations

  • Plagiarism or inappropriate text similarity

  • Overall suitability for peer review

A manuscript may be declined at the initial stage if it falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet basic scholarly or ethical requirements, or is not sufficiently prepared for external review.

Double-Anonymous Review

AJQR follows a double-anonymous peer review process in which, as far as practicable, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another.

Authors should therefore ensure that the submitted manuscript does not unnecessarily reveal their identities within the manuscript or supplementary files.

Reviewers are also expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and should not disclose their identity to the authors through the review process.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on relevant academic expertise, research experience, subject knowledge, and the absence of known conflicts of interest.

The journal may invite additional reviewers when necessary, including where reviewer recommendations substantially differ or further specialist assessment is required.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and scholarly assessments.

  • Evaluate the manuscript fairly and independently.

  • Maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and review process.

  • Identify relevant methodological, conceptual, ethical, or scholarly concerns.

  • Identify significant relevant published work that has not been appropriately acknowledged, where applicable.

  • Declare any potential conflict of interest.

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or inform the editorial team if an extension is required.

Reviewers should not use, reproduce, share, or otherwise exploit unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the editorial team may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Accept subject to minor revisions

  • Revise and resubmit / major revisions

  • Reject

The final editorial decision is made by the journal's authorized editor(s), taking into account the reviewers' assessments and the journal's editorial policies.

A reviewer recommendation is advisory and does not by itself determine the final editorial decision.

Revisions

Where revisions are requested, authors may be required to submit a revised manuscript together with a response explaining how the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of their assessment.

A reviewer may be replaced where a conflict of interest could compromise the integrity or independence of the review process.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, review reports, editorial correspondence, or other confidential information to third parties without authorization from the journal.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload or disclose confidential manuscript content to generative artificial intelligence systems or other external tools where doing so could compromise confidentiality.

Any use of artificial intelligence or automated tools in the review process must comply with the journal's AI Policy and applicable confidentiality requirements.

Editorial Independence

Peer-review and editorial decisions are made independently of commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, or other financial considerations.

Payment of any applicable publication charge does not guarantee acceptance or influence the peer-review outcome.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy. Appeals should identify specific procedural concerns or substantive grounds and will be considered by the editorial team in accordance with the journal's policies.

Review Records

AJQR maintains appropriate editorial and peer-review records for submitted manuscripts in accordance with its editorial, ethical, and record-keeping policies.

Review Integrity

AJQR is committed to conducting peer review fairly, confidentially, transparently, and consistently. The journal may take appropriate action where there is evidence of reviewer misconduct, manipulation of the peer-review process, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other breaches of publication ethics.

Peer Review Model: Double-Anonymous Peer Review
Typical Number of Reviewers: At least two independent reviewers
Journal Email: editor@ajqr.ibexinstitute.org