peer review policy

  1. Purpose of Peer Review

Asia Journal of Advanced Education and Training Research (AJAETR) employs a stringent peer review process to uphold the scholarly quality, uniqueness, and ethical standards of the research it disseminates. The purpose of peer review is to aid authors in enhancing their manuscripts, support editors in making unbiased publication choices, and guarantee that published works deliver dependable, evidence-based contributions to economics and empirical studies.

  1. Peer Review Model: Double-Blind Review

Every manuscript sent to the AJAETR undergoes a thorough review by peers through a double-blind assessment method. In this approach, reviewers remain unaware of the authors’ identities, just as authors are kept in the dark about who the reviewers are.

Maintaining the confidentiality of authors serves to eliminate any potential biases from reviewers that may arise from aspects such as the author's nation of origin, institutional ties, identity, or previously contentious publications. AJAETR further guarantees that manuscripts from well-respected scholars are assessed exclusively on the academic merit of the work submitted. An author's prestige or social status is deemed secondary in the editorial assessment and does not affect publication outcomes.

Authors must eliminate any personal details from their manuscripts, metadata, acknowledgments, and additional documents before submission. Manuscripts failing to meet the anonymity criteria may be sent back to the authors for adjustments before external evaluation.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission experiences a initial assessment by the Editorial Office and/or the Editor-in-Chief to confirm that:

  1. The document aligns well with the objectives and areas of focus of the (AJAETR);
  2. The subject matter is pertinent to economics and empirical studies;
  3. The research showcases adequate innovation and scholarly value;
  4. The document adheres to the guidelines for formatting and submission;
  5. And there are no apparent ethical issues involved

Manuscripts that lie beyond the journal’s domain or do not satisfy minimum criteria might be dismissed at this point without any external evaluation.

  1. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully clear editorial review and plagiarism assessments are forwarded to impartial evaluators possessing relevant expertise in both subject matter and methodology. Reviewers are chosen based on:

  • A power full research and publication history;
  • Absence of conflict of interest;
  • Talent to provide a review within the requested timeframe.

AJAETR generally designates a minimum of two evaluators for every submission. Extra reviewers might be added when specialized expertise is necessary.

Authors can propose appropriate evaluators or ask for the omission of certain persons, providing justifications. Nevertheless, the ultimate choice lies with the editors to uphold the purity and autonomy of the evaluation process.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are anticipated to deliver a professional, impartial, and helpful assessment of written works. Their critique should be grounded solely in academic value and substantiation. Reviewers are required to:

  • Evaluate the manuscript impartially and without prejudice;
  • offer explicit, comprehensive, and scholarly substantiated remarks;
  • avoid personal attacks or biased language;
  • uphold the privacy of the manuscript and review exchanges;
  • immediately disclose any potential conflicts of interest;
  • inform the editor if they are unable to finalize the review within the specified timeframe.

Reviewers must not distribute manuscripts to others or exploit unpublished materials for personal gain.

  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers are invited to assess entries based on standards pertinent to economic studies and data-driven research, comprising:

  1. Novelty and Impact: Assessing if the article presents fresh perspectives, significant empirical results, or theoretical progress in the field of economics.
  2. Alignment with AJAETR: Evaluating if the document corresponds with the journal's objectives, domain, and readership.
  3. Methodological Integrity: Determining if the econometric/modeling strategy is suitable, thoroughly applied, and transparently articulated.
  4. Data and Analytical Integrity: Assessing the trustworthiness of data origins; the transparency of analyses; and the robustness and reproducibility of outcomes.
  5. Engagement with Scholarly Works: Evaluating whether the manuscript demonstrates a solid foundation in pertinent literature and accurate referencing.
  6. Clarity of Organization and Expression: Examining if the reasoning is rational, coherent, and articulated in an academically articulate fashion.
  7. Validity of Inferences: Determining if interpretations are substantiated by the evidence presented and if limitations are duly recognized.
  8. Adherence to Ethical Standards: Confirming if ethical approvals and disclosures are documented when necessary.

 

  1. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Upon evaluation, reviewers offer one of the subsequent recommendations:

  • Approve without modification
  • Approve with slight alterations
  • Significant revisions needed
  • Reject

The managing editor assesses reviewer feedback and makes a judgment based on their suggestions and the journal’s criteria. Reviewer assessments are advisory; the ultimate decision lies with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor.

Contributors receive anonymized reviewer feedback along with an official editorial decision letter.

  1. Revision Process

When changes are necessary, authors should provide:

  1. an updated manuscript; and
  2. a comprehensive point-by-point reply detailing how each reviewer's feedback has been tackled.

Minor amendments might be evaluated straight by the editor. Significant revisions are typically sent back to the original reviewers for additional assessment. If the revision fails to adequately resolve the reviewer and editor concerns, the manuscript may face rejection.

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who feel that a publishing decision was incorrect or lacked fair process can send a formal appeal to the Editorial Office at "info@asiaonlineopenjournals.com". Appeals should provide a well-defined academic justification. The Editor-in-Chief will examine the situation and may either maintain the ruling, seek further opinions from reviewers, or reevaluate the manuscript. The ruling on the appeal is conclusive.