Peer Review Policy

  1. Commitment to Peer Review

AFSR is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing. Peer review is a core part of our editorial process and is designed to ensure that all published articles are original, methodologically sound, intellectually significant, and ethically produced. The journal aims to provide authors with fair, constructive, and timely feedback, while ensuring readers can rely on the quality and integrity of the research we publish.

  1. Peer Review Model: Double-Blind Review

All manuscripts submitted to AFSR are peer-reviewed using the double-blind review process. Under this system, authors do not know the identities of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of authors. Manuscripts are anonymized before being sent to reviewers, and authors must ensure that their submissions do not include any identifying information in the manuscript text, acknowledgements, file properties, or supplementary materials.

Author anonymity prevents any potential reviewer bias based on factors such as an author’s country of origin, institutional affiliation, personal identity, or previous controversial work. AFSR also ensures that, in line with our principles of academic integrity, works authored by individuals with significant reputation are considered for publication solely on the quality of their scholarly content. The reputation, seniority, or public standing of the author(s) is regarded as incidental to the editorial decision.

  1. Editorial Screening Before Review

Each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Office and/or the Editor-in-Chief to confirm that it fits the aims and scope of the journal and meets minimum scholarly and ethical requirements. At this stage, the editors assess originality, relevance, clarity, and compliance with journal formatting and submission rules. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic standards may be rejected without external review.

  1. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter, methodological competence, publication record, and ability to complete reviews in a timely manner. AFSR normally assigns at least two reviewers to each manuscript. Additional reviewers may be invited when a manuscript requires specialized knowledge.

AFSR takes active steps to avoid conflicts of interest during reviewer selection. Authors may suggest qualified reviewers or request exclusion of certain individuals, but the final decision on reviewer appointment remains with the editors.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, thorough, and respectful evaluation of each manuscript. Their role is to assess the academic quality, originality, and contribution of the submission, and to provide constructive guidance that helps authors improve their work. Reviewers must:

  • evaluate manuscripts impartially and based on scholarly merit;
  • explain recommendations clearly and with supporting academic reasoning;
  • avoid personal criticism or discriminatory language;
  • maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts and review discussions; and
  • disclose any conflict of interest immediately upon recognition.

Reviewers are not permitted to share manuscripts, discuss them with others, or use unpublished content for their own benefit.

  1. Review Criteria

In their reports, reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to scholarly and ethical standards. Reviewers typically consider:

  1. the originality and contribution of the study to the field;
  2. the rigor and suitability of the research design and methodology;
  3. the quality and clarity of the analysis or argument;
  4. engagement with relevant and current literature;
  5. the structure, coherence, and clarity of the manuscript;
  6. the validity of conclusions in relation to the evidence presented; and
  7. compliance with ethical requirements, especially for studies involving human or animal subjects.
  1. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing evaluation, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations guide editorial decisions, but the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the handling editor.

  1. Editorial Decisions and Author Notification

Editor-in-Chief or the handling editor makes publication decisions after carefully considering reviewer reports and the overall scholarly value of the manuscript. Authors receive a formal decision letter along with anonymized reviewer comments. When revisions are required, authors must respond to reviewer feedback in a detailed, respectful, and scholarly manner.

  1. Revisions and Re-review

Authors submitting a revised manuscript must provide:

  1. a clean revised version of the manuscript; and
  2. a point-by-point response explaining how reviewer comments were addressed.

Major revisions may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. Further rounds of revision may occur if necessary to ensure the manuscript meets AFSR standards.

  1. Plagiarism Screening and Research Integrity

All manuscripts submitted to AFSR are checked for plagiarism, including duplicate or self-plagiarism. This process is conducted under the guidance of the standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

AFSR uses Crossref’s Similarity Check tool to screen content for plagiarism. AFSR is a member of Crossref, and Similarity Check is employed to uphold originality and ethical scholarship. If plagiarism or substantial overlap is identified, the manuscript may be rejected, returned for correction, or investigated further depending on severity.

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual misunderstanding or procedural unfairness may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office at [info@asianonlinejournals.com].  Appeals must provide clear academic justification. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may uphold the decision, seek further review, or reconsider the manuscript. All appeal outcomes are final.