Peer Review Policy

The Academia Journal of Global Social and Economic Studies (AJGSES) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity, scientific rigor, and publication ethics. Central to this commitment is our rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review policy, which ensures that every published article undergoes comprehensive evaluation by qualified subject-matter experts.

AJGSES operates a Double-Blind Peer Review System to eliminate personal, institutional, geographical, or commercial bias.

Peer Review Model

• Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review (4 Independent Referees: 2 Internal & 2 External).

• Anonymity: Authors and reviewers remain completely anonymous to one another throughout and after the evaluation process.

• Evaluation Standard: Manuscripts are evaluated strictly on academic merit, research design, methodological validity, originality, and ethical compliance.

Step-by-Step Peer Review Workflow

[Manuscript Submission] 
       │
       ▼
[1. Initial Screening & Plagiarism Check] ──(Fails Criteria)──► [Desk Reject]
       │
       ▼
[2. Expert Assignment (2 Internal + 2 External)]
       │
       ▼
[3. Review Evaluation & Recommendations]
       │
       ▼
[4. Editorial Decision & Author Feedback]

1. Initial Editorial Screening & Quality Check

Upon submission through the online portal, the Managing Editor performs a preliminary evaluation to verify:

• Scope Alignment: Relevance to social and economic disciplines.

• Plagiarism & Similarity: Comprehensive similarity check using Turnitin or equivalent software.

• Ethical Compliance: Submission of required institutional ethics committee approvals, informed consent statements, and author disclosures.

• Formatting: Adherence to journal author guidelines.

Manuscripts failing to meet basic quality or ethical thresholds are desk-rejected at this stage without external review.

2. Reviewer Selection & Assignment

Submissions passing initial screening are assigned to four expert reviewers (two internal editorial board members and two independent external domain experts). Selection criteria include:

• Demonstrated subject-matter expertise and publication track record.

• Geographic diversity and institutional independence.

• Strict absence of any commercial or personal Conflict of Interest (COI).

3. Review Criteria & Guidelines

Reviewers assess manuscripts using standardized criteria:

• Originality & Contribution: Novelty and significance to the existing body of knowledge.

• Methodological Rigor: Robustness of study design, sampling, qualitative/quantitative data analysis, and validity of conclusions.

• Writing & Structure: Organization, logical flow, clarity, and precision of language.

• Ethical Standards: Adherence to human/animal subject protection and data integrity protocols.

Review Recommendations:

1. Accept without Revision

2. Minor Revisions: Acceptable subject to minor formal or stylistic modifications.

3. Major Revisions: Requires substantial structural or empirical rework and mandatory re-review.

4. Reject: Substantially flawed or unsuitable for publication.

4. Editorial Decision & Final Determination

The Editor-in-Chief consolidates all four reviewer reports to issue a formal decision letter. Authors receive detailed, constructive feedback and, where applicable, a structured revision timeline (typically 2–4 weeks).

Peer Review Timeline

• Initial Screening: 3–5 working days.

• First Round Peer Review: 3–4 weeks.

• Average Time from Submission to First Decision: 4–6 weeks.

Publication Ethics & Reviewer Responsibilities

AJGSES strictly adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and local editorial benchmark standards (such as HEC Pakistan guidelines):

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or utilize unpublished manuscript data for personal or institutional gain.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must immediately decline review requests if a conflict of interest (financial, collaborative, or personal) exists.

• Objectivity & Respect: Feedback must be constructive, evidence-based, free of inflammatory language, and free from discrimination.

• Post-Decision Appeals: Authors may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief with detailed justifications. Appealed manuscripts are reviewed independently by a senior Editorial Board member for a final, non-appealable decision.

Reviewer Recognition & Transparency

To uphold transparency and recognize reviewer contributions without compromising double-blind anonymity:

• An annual list of contributing reviewers is published on the journal website (subject to consent).

• Formal Certificates of Peer Review Recognition are issued upon request.

• Outstanding reviewers are invited to join the International Editorial Advisory Board.

???? DOAJ Compliance Check for this Section