Peer Review Process

Reviewer Policy

Asian Journal of Professional and Business Studies (AJPBS)

The Asian Journal of Professional and Business Studies (AJPBS) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer-review process. Peer review is an essential component of the journal's editorial quality assurance and is intended to assess the scholarly quality, methodological validity, originality, theoretical contribution, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

AJPBS adopts a double-blind peer-review process, in which:

  • The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.

  • The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

  • Authors are required to remove identifying information from the manuscript before submission.

  • Reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact the authors during the review process.

The editorial team will make reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity throughout the review process.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Before a manuscript is sent for external peer review, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the submission:

  • falls within the journal's aims and scope;

  • follows the AJPBS Author Guidelines and manuscript format;

  • demonstrates sufficient academic and scholarly quality;

  • contains clearly stated research objectives or research questions;

  • provides an appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundation;

  • demonstrates an identifiable contribution or novelty;

  • provides sufficient methodological information;

  • complies with research ethics and publication ethics requirements;

  • includes appropriate declarations, where applicable; and

  • meets the journal's similarity and originality requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • subject-matter and methodological expertise;

  • relevant academic or professional experience;

  • publication or research experience in the relevant field;

  • independence from the authors and their institutions, where reasonably identifiable by the editorial team; and

  • absence of known conflicts of interest.

The Editor may appoint an additional reviewer when the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations or when specialist methodological or subject expertise is required.

4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts systematically using the following criteria:

A. Originality and Theoretical Contribution – 20%

Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript:

  • addresses a meaningful research problem;

  • demonstrates originality or theoretical novelty;

  • extends, tests, integrates, or applies theory meaningfully;

  • provides new empirical, conceptual, contextual, methodological, or practical insights; and

  • clearly explains its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

B. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation – 15%

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • the literature is relevant and sufficiently current;

  • major studies relevant to the research problem are appropriately considered;

  • the theoretical or conceptual foundation is clearly explained;

  • hypotheses, propositions, or research questions are supported by the literature; and

  • citations and references are relevant and appropriately used.

C. Methodological Validity – 25%

Particular attention should be given to methodological validity. Reviewers should evaluate, where applicable:

  • research design;

  • population and sampling;

  • sample size and justification;

  • data collection procedures;

  • research instruments and measurements;

  • validity and reliability;

  • operationalisation of variables;

  • qualitative or quantitative analytical procedures;

  • appropriateness of statistical techniques;

  • robustness of the analysis;

  • alignment between research objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions; and

  • limitations affecting the interpretation of the findings.

Reviewers should identify methodological weaknesses that could materially affect the validity, reliability, or interpretation of the study.

D. Results and Discussion – 20%

Reviewers should determine whether:

  • results are presented accurately and clearly;

  • tables, figures, and statistical findings are appropriately reported;

  • findings directly address the research objectives or questions;

  • interpretations are supported by the evidence;

  • findings are adequately compared with previous literature;

  • theoretical and practical implications are clearly explained; and

  • conclusions do not extend beyond the evidence presented.

E. Research Transparency, Ethics and Data Availability – 10%

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appropriately addresses:

  • research ethics approval, where applicable;

  • informed consent, where applicable;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • funding information;

  • acknowledgement of relevant support;

  • data availability; and

  • other relevant ethical or transparency declarations.

Authors should include a Data Availability Statement explaining whether and under what conditions the data supporting the study may be accessed.

Where data cannot be made publicly available because of ethical, legal, privacy, confidentiality, contractual, or other legitimate restrictions, the reason should be clearly stated.

Reviewers should assess the adequacy of the statement but should not request access to confidential or personally identifiable data unless such access is necessary, ethically appropriate, and permitted by the journal.

F. Writing, Structure and References – 10%

Reviewers should assess:

  • clarity and coherence of academic writing;

  • logical organisation of the manuscript;

  • consistency of terminology;

  • quality and relevance of tables and figures;

  • citation accuracy, where reasonably assessable;

  • consistency between in-text citations and the reference list; and

  • compliance with the journal's referencing requirements.

5. Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the assessment, reviewers should provide constructive comments and make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains with the Editor or Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' reports, the quality of the manuscript, compliance with journal policies, and the journal's editorial standards.

6. Constructive and Evidence-Based Review

Reviewer comments should be:

  • objective;

  • specific;

  • constructive;

  • academically justified;

  • respectful and professional; and

  • focused on improving or assessing the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should clearly distinguish between essential revisions required to address scientific or scholarly weaknesses and optional suggestions intended to improve presentation.

Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, hostile language, or unsupported allegations are unacceptable.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript or its contents with unauthorised persons;

  • use unpublished information, arguments, methods, or data for personal advantage;

  • upload or disclose manuscript content to unauthorised third-party systems where confidentiality cannot be assured; or

  • discuss the manuscript publicly before publication.

If specialist advice is required, reviewers should obtain permission from the editorial office before involving another individual.

8. Conflict of Interest

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

A reviewer should decline the invitation where an appropriate and objective review cannot reasonably be provided because of a personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, or collaborative relationship.

When uncertain, reviewers should disclose the potential conflict to the Editor, who will determine whether the review may proceed.

9. Research and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should alert the Editor confidentially if they identify potential concerns involving:

  • plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • inappropriate image or data manipulation;

  • fabricated or falsified data;

  • unethical research practices;

  • inappropriate authorship;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest; or

  • other potential breaches of publication ethics.

Reviewers should provide sufficient information to enable the Editor to investigate the concern and should avoid making definitive accusations without adequate evidence.

AJPBS handles suspected publication-ethics concerns in accordance with recognised principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

10. Citation Requests

Reviewers should not require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications unless those references are genuinely relevant and academically necessary.

Requests for additional citations must be based on scholarly relevance rather than an attempt to increase citations to particular authors, journals, or publications.

11. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their review reports.

Confidential manuscripts or substantial unpublished manuscript content should not be uploaded to public or unauthorised generative artificial intelligence systems.

Where the use of an AI-assisted tool is permitted by the journal or relevant institutional requirements, reviewers must ensure that confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property, and research-integrity requirements are maintained.

AI-generated output must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgement.

12. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to:

  • respond to the review invitation promptly;

  • complete the review within the period specified by the editorial office;

  • inform the Editor as soon as possible if additional time is required; and

  • decline the invitation promptly if they are unable to complete the review within a reasonable period.

The editorial team may issue reminders through the OJS workflow to facilitate timely peer review.

13. Revised Manuscripts

Where a manuscript is revised, reviewers may be asked to evaluate whether:

  • previous comments have been adequately addressed;

  • methodological concerns have been resolved;

  • conclusions remain supported by the revised evidence;

  • additional analyses are appropriately reported; and

  • the revised manuscript meets the scholarly standards required for publication.

Authors should provide a clear point-by-point response to reviewer comments.

14. Editorial Oversight

The Editor and Editor-in-Chief are responsible for maintaining the integrity and consistency of the peer-review process.

Editorial decisions should consider:

  • reviewer assessments;

  • methodological validity;

  • originality and theoretical contribution;

  • relevance to the journal's scope;

  • ethical and transparency requirements;

  • quality of revisions; and

  • overall scholarly contribution.

The journal may seek additional expert review when necessary.

15. Reviewer Recognition and Performance Monitoring

AJPBS values the contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining publication quality.

The editorial team may periodically monitor reviewer performance based on factors such as:

  • quality and depth of review;

  • constructiveness of comments;

  • methodological assessment;

  • timeliness;

  • professionalism;

  • conflict-of-interest compliance; and

  • consistency with journal review standards.

The journal may maintain and periodically update its reviewer pool to ensure appropriate disciplinary and methodological expertise.

16. Reviewer Rubric Summary

The standard AJPBS reviewer assessment is structured as follows:

Assessment Area Weight
Originality and Theoretical Contribution 20%
Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation 15%
Methodological Validity 25%
Results and Discussion 20%
Research Transparency, Ethics and Data Availability 10%
Writing, Structure and References 10%
Total 100%

The numerical assessment supports editorial evaluation but does not automatically determine the final decision. Reviewers must also provide qualitative comments explaining major strengths, weaknesses, and required revisions.

Publisher: Universiti Poly-Tech Malaysia (UPTM)
Journal: Asian Journal of Professional and Business Studies (AJPBS)