Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy and Process

The Iranian Journal of Asian Studies (IJAS)

 

Shiraz University

 

All manuscripts submitted to the Iranian Journal of Asian Studies (IJAS) are subject to a rigorous double-blind peer review process. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review in order to promote fairness, objectivity and academic integrity.

The purpose of peer review is to ensure that only work of high scholarly quality, methodological soundness and clear relevance to the aims and scope of the Journal is published.

 

  1. Peer Review Policy (Double-Blind)
  • All research articles are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.
  • Reviewers receive anonymised manuscripts that do not contain the authors’ names or institutional affiliations.
  • Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
  • The Journal does not normally reject a manuscript solely on the basis of a single negative report; editorial decisions are based on a balanced assessment of the reviewers’ comments and the editors’ own judgement.

 

  1. Overview of the Process

The peer review process in IJAS consists of the following main stages:

  1. Online submission and technical check
  2. Editorial screening (desk review)
  3. External double-blind peer review
  4. Editorial decision
  5. Revision and resubmission (where applicable)
  6. Final acceptance and preparation for publication

Indicative time frames are given below; these may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript and the extent of revisions required.

 

  1. Submission and Technical Check
  1. Manuscripts must be submitted through the Journal’s online submission system. Submissions by e-mail are not normally considered.
  2. On receipt, the Editorial Office checks that:
    • the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of IJAS;
    • the structure and formatting follow the Guide for Authors;
    • the submission is properly anonymised for double-blind review;
    • the English title, abstract and keywords are provided;
    • required declarations (for example, funding, conflicts of interest, ethics for human/animal studies where relevant) are included.
  3. All submissions are screened using similarity-checking software. Manuscripts showing substantial overlap with previously published or submitted work may be rejected at this stage or returned to authors for clarification.
  4. Manuscripts that clearly do not meet the Journal’s basic academic standards, ethical requirements or scope may be rejected without external review (“desk rejection”).

The Journal aims, as far as possible, to complete this initial check within approximately 7–10 days of submission.

 

  1. Editorial Screening
  1. Manuscripts that pass the technical check are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to a handling editor (such as an associate editor or a member of the Editorial Board) with expertise in the relevant area.
  2. The handling editor carries out a preliminary academic assessment, considering:
    • originality and contribution to knowledge;
    • theoretical and/or empirical significance;
    • methodological appropriateness and rigour;
    • quality of argumentation and structure;
    • relevance to Asian studies and to the Journal’s thematic priorities.
  3. On this basis, the editor may:
    • send the manuscript for external peer review, or
    • recommend rejection at this stage if the manuscript is not suitable for the Journal.

 

  1. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers
  1. For manuscripts proceeding to external review, the handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers who are recognised specialists in the subject area. In some cases, a third reviewer may be consulted to resolve divergent opinions.
  2. Reviewers are selected with regard to:
    • subject-matter expertise;
    • absence of conflicts of interest;
    • previous record of high-quality reviews (where applicable);
    • geographical and institutional diversity, as far as practicable.
  3. Reviewers receive:
    • the anonymised manuscript;
    • a standard review form or set of guiding questions;
    • an indication of the expected time frame for submitting their report.
  4. Authors may, at the time of submission, suggest potential reviewers and may also identify individuals whom they would prefer not to review their manuscript (for example, because of potential conflicts of interest). The Journal is not obliged to follow these suggestions but may take them into account.

The Journal aims, where possible, to obtain referee reports within 4–8 weeks.

 

  1. Role and Expectations of Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to provide a fair, balanced and constructive assessment of the manuscript, addressing in particular:

  • the originality and significance of the topic;
  • the adequacy and currency of the literature review;
  • the appropriateness and rigour of the theoretical and/or methodological approach;
  • the robustness of the analysis and interpretation of findings;
  • the coherence of the argument and clarity of the writing;
  • the validity of the conclusions and their contribution to the field.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • treat the manuscript and all associated material as strictly confidential;
  • declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest as soon as they become aware of them;
  • refrain from using information from the manuscript in their own work until the article is published;
  • submit their reports within the agreed time or inform the editor promptly if they are unable to meet the deadline.

Reviewer reports normally consist of:

  • a concise overall recommendation (e.g. accept, minor revision, major revision, reject);
  • detailed comments and suggestions for the authors;
  • confidential remarks to the editor, where necessary.

 

  1. Editorial Decision

Once the required reviews have been received, the handling editor evaluates them alongside their own assessment of the manuscript.

On this basis, one of the following decisions is normally made:

  • Accept – the manuscript is accepted with no or only very minor editorial changes.
  • Minor revision – the manuscript is publishable in principle, but minor revisions are required before final acceptance.
  • Major revision – substantial changes are needed (for example, in argument, structure, literature, methods or analysis) before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
  • Reject and encourage resubmission – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form, but the topic may be of interest if extensively reworked and resubmitted as a new manuscript.
  • Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the Journal.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; however, they are taken very seriously in the decision-making process.

Authors receive a decision letter together with anonymised reviewer comments and any additional editorial guidance.

 

  1. Revision and Resubmission
  1. Where a decision of minor or major revision is issued, authors are invited to revise their manuscript and resubmit within a specified period.
  2. Authors are expected to:
    • respond carefully to all comments from reviewers and editors;
    • prepare a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed (or, with justification, why a suggestion has not been implemented);
    • highlight changes in the revised manuscript (for example, using tracked changes or coloured text).
  3. Revised manuscripts may be:
    • assessed by the handling editor alone (particularly in cases of minor revision), or
    • sent back to one or more of the original reviewers for further evaluation, especially after major revisions.
  4. In some cases a second, and more rarely a third, round of revision may be requested before a final decision can be made.

The Journal normally expects revised manuscripts to be returned within a period agreed in the decision letter (for example, 3–4 weeks for minor revisions and 6–8 weeks for major revisions).

 

  1. Anonymity and Confidentiality (Double-Blind Review)

To safeguard the integrity of the double-blind review process:

  • Authors should ensure that:
    • their names and affiliations are removed from the main manuscript file;
    • self-citations are written in the third person where possible;
    • acknowledgements and any potentially identifying information are placed in separate files, not in the anonymised manuscript.
  • Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors. If a reviewer believes they know the identity of an author and considers that this may affect their impartiality, they should inform the editor and may be replaced.
  • Editors and editorial staff manage all files and correspondence in a way that preserves anonymity and confidentiality.

 

  1. Final Acceptance and Publication
  1. When a manuscript is formally accepted, the corresponding author is notified in writing.
  2. The manuscript then enters the production process, which may include copy-editing, language editing, typesetting and the preparation of page proofs.
  3. Authors are given the opportunity to review proofs for the correction of typographical errors and minor textual issues. Substantive changes to the content are not normally permitted at this stage.
  4. The final, corrected version is published online as an open access article on the Journal’s website and included in the appropriate issue of IJAS.