Review Policy

The Asian Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) follows a rigorous and structured peer review process to ensure high-quality research publication. Below is an overview of the 10-step review process:

1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to AJQR, typically via an online submission system. In certain cases, submissions via email may be considered.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The editorial office checks the manuscript’s structure and formatting against the AJQR Author Guidelines. At this stage, the paper's quality and content are not evaluated.

3. Initial Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC reviews the manuscript for relevance, originality, and suitability for AJQR. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope or originality requirements may be rejected at this stage without further review.

4. Assignment of an Associate Editor (AE)

If required, an Associate Editor (AE) is assigned to handle the peer review process.

5. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor invites qualified reviewers from relevant fields. If necessary, additional invitations are sent to ensure a minimum of two expert reviewers accept the request.

6. Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers evaluate their availability and expertise before accepting or declining the request. In case of a decline, they may suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Peer Review Process

Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript, typically reading it multiple times. Initial assessments may lead to immediate rejection in cases of major issues. Otherwise, reviewers provide a detailed, structured evaluation, recommending one of the following:

  • Acceptance
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions
  • Rejection

8. Editorial Decision Based on Reviews

The handling editor assesses all reviewer comments before making a decision. In cases of significant disagreement among reviewers, an additional expert review may be requested.

9. Decision Notification

The editor communicates the final decision to the author along with constructive reviewer comments. Reviewer identities remain confidential in a double-blind peer review system.

10. Final Steps

  • If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage.
  • If revisions are required, the author receives specific feedback for improvement.
  • If rejected, the decision is final, with reasons provided to the author.

For revised manuscripts, reviewers may be asked to reassess the changes unless the revisions are minor, in which case the handling editor may finalize the review.