Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process and Policy

The Journal of Asian Geography is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and quality. Our peer review process is guided by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which outline principles of integrity, transparency, and fairness. The journal ensures that all submitted manuscripts are evaluated in a rigorous, objective, and timely manner.

1. Type of Peer Review

The Journal of Asian Geography adopts a single-blind peer review process. In this system, the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, but the identities of the authors are known to the reviewers throughout the review process. Authors are advised to prepare their manuscripts accordingly without anonymizing their content.

2. Reviewer Selection Process

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic background, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript. The editorial team maintains and regularly updates a database of qualified reviewers from diverse subfields of geography and related disciplines. Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission; however, the editorial team retains full discretion over final reviewer selection. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

3. Reviewer Report Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to the field of Asian geography

  • Theoretical or conceptual framework

  • Appropriateness and rigor of research methodology

  • Clarity and accuracy of data presentation and analysis

  • Relevance of findings and conclusions

  • Ethical considerations and proper citation of prior work

  • Overall coherence, structure, and academic writing quality

Reviewers may also suggest improvements in language and structure, although language editing is not their primary responsibility.

4. Peer Review Workflow

Upon receiving a review invitation, the reviewer is expected to respond promptly to confirm availability. The review process involves the following stages:

  1. Initial assessment by the editorial team to ensure scope and format compliance

  2. Review assignment to suitable experts (2 or more)

  3. Reviewer evaluation, including written comments and a recommendation:

    • Accept Submission: Suitable for publication with minimal or no revisions

    • Minor Revisions Required: Requires small amendments, usually reviewed by editor

    • Major Revisions Required: Substantial changes needed; re-review may be required

    • Reject Submission: Not suitable for publication based on major flaws or misalignment with journal scope

Reviewers may upload detailed comments or fill in the evaluation form provided by the submission system.

5. Duration of the Review Process

The typical review timeline is 4 to 8 weeks, but may vary depending on the availability and responsiveness of reviewers. Authors will be notified of delays, if any, and are welcome to inquire about the status of their submission after a reasonable time.

6. Final Decision and Notification

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor, who will consider the reviewers’ recommendations, authors’ revisions, and the overall quality of the manuscript. Decisions are communicated to authors via email through the journal’s submission system.