Peer Review Policy
ASEAN Journal of Humanities and Multidisciplinary Studies (AJHMS)
Our Commitment to Rigorous Review
AJHMS publishes only work that has been independently vetted by qualified scholars in the relevant field. Peer review is the backbone of that commitment, it protects the integrity of the humanities and social science scholarship we publish, strengthens the work of our authors, and gives readers confidence that every article meets a consistent scholarly standard, regardless of where or by whom it was submitted.
All research articles, review articles, and critical essays published in AJHMS undergo peer review. The only exceptions are non-research content such as editorials, announcements, or invited commentaries, which are clearly labelled as such and are not represented as peer-reviewed scholarship.
Type of Review: Double-Blind
AJHMS follows a double-blind peer review process. Author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors, throughout the review process. Manuscripts are desensitized prior to review, author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other identifying details are removed from the version sent to reviewers.
We use this model because it reduces the influence of an author’s institutional standing, career stage, or personal networks on how a manuscript is judged, keeping the focus on the quality and rigor of the work itself.
Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening
Every submission is first reviewed by the editorial office before it is sent out for peer review. This screening checks that the manuscript:
- Falls within the journal’s aims and scope
- Follows AJHMS’s submission and formatting guidelines
- Meets a basic threshold of academic quality, originality, and coherence
- Includes all required components (abstract, keywords, complete references, and any required ethical declarations)
- Has not been published elsewhere or is not under simultaneous review at another journal
Manuscripts that do not meet these baseline requirements may be returned to the author for revision before proceeding to peer review, or declined at this stage without external review. Authors are notified of the outcome of this screening and, where applicable, the reasons for it.
Stage 2: Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. Reviewers are drawn from the journal’s pool of qualified academics, researchers, and practitioners and are selected based on their scholarly background and familiarity with the manuscript’s subject area.
Before accepting an assignment, reviewers are required to declare any potential conflict of interest such as personal, professional, or financial, relating to the manuscript or its authors. Where a conflict exists, the manuscript is reassigned to an alternate reviewer.
Stage 3: Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate each manuscript against the following criteria:
- Originality and contribution to existing knowledge
- Relevance and significance of the research topic
- Clarity of research objectives and questions
- Appropriateness and soundness of methodology
- Validity and reliability of findings and interpretation
- Quality of analysis, argumentation, and discussion
- Organization, clarity, and academic writing quality
- Accuracy and adequacy of citations and references
Based on this evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following outcomes:
- Accept without revisions
- Accept with minor revisions
- Accept with major revisions
- Reject
Stage 4: Editorial Decision
The final decision on every manuscript rests with the journal’s editorial team, informed by the reviewers’ recommendations. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, never on the author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, political belief, religion, or ability to pay any applicable fees.
Authors receive a decision letter along with the anonymized comments of all reviewers. When revisions are requested, authors must submit, within the specified timeframe:
- A revised manuscript addressing the feedback
- A point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment was addressed
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for a further round of evaluation where necessary. This cycle continues until the editorial team is satisfied the manuscript meets the journal’s standards, or until a final decision to reject is reached.
Timeline
AJHMS aims to complete the first round of peer review within 1-5 working days of a manuscript passing initial screening, and to communicate a final decision within 1-2 weeks of the first reviewer reports being received. Actual timelines can vary depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions requested. Authors are kept informed of their manuscript’s status throughout the process, and are notified, with reasons, of any significant delay. Authors may withdraw a manuscript at any point if a delay makes continued review impractical for them.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff may not share, disclose, or make use of the content of a manuscript under review for any personal or professional purpose prior to publication.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any conflict of interest relating to a manuscript, including personal relationships, financial interests, or professional affiliations that could reasonably be seen to influence their judgment. Where such a conflict arises, the manuscript is reassigned to an editor or reviewer without a competing interest.
Publication Ethics
AJHMS follows internationally recognized standards of publication ethics, informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, including the avoidance of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, redundant publication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. Allegations of research or publication misconduct relating to a submitted or published manuscript are investigated in line with COPE guidance.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, explaining the basis for their disagreement. Appeals are considered by an editor not previously involved in the decision, and, where warranted, by an additional independent reviewer. Complaints regarding the conduct of the review process may also be submitted to the editorial office and will be handled in accordance with the journal’s ethics procedures.
Questions
For any questions about our peer review process, please contact the editorial office at editor@ajhms.com.