Asian Journal of Criminal Justice and Forensic Studies

“Asian Journal of Criminal Justice and Forensic Studies” operates a rigorous peer review process designed to ensure the scientific quality, originality, integrity and relevance of the research it publishes. Peer review assists the Editorial Board in making informed publication decisions and provides authors with constructive feedback aimed at improving their manuscripts.

The journal follows the principles of publication ethics and good editorial practice recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive and impartial assessments, maintain the confidentiality of all materials received for review, and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Peer review model

The journal applies a double-anonymised peer review model. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

The Editorial Office takes reasonable measures to remove information from the manuscript that could directly identify the authors before the manuscript is sent for external review. Authors are also responsible for preparing their manuscripts in a manner that does not unnecessarily reveal their identity.

Initial editorial screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for peer review. At this stage, the Editorial Office checks whether the manuscript:

• falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
• complies with the journal’s submission and formatting requirements;
• contains the required structural and bibliographic elements;
• meets basic standards of academic quality and research integrity;
• complies with the journal’s ethical requirements;
• has undergone the journal’s similarity and originality screening procedures.

A manuscript may be returned to the authors for technical revision or declined without external peer review if it falls outside the journal’s scope, does not meet the journal’s basic requirements, or has substantial deficiencies that prevent further scholarly assessment.

Passing the initial editorial screening does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

Editorial assessment and conflicts of interest

The initial scientific assessment is normally undertaken by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or another appropriately qualified member of the Editorial Board.

Editors must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process for manuscripts in relation to which they have an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. This includes manuscripts authored by themselves, their close relatives, colleagues, research collaborators, or other persons with whom they have relationships that could reasonably affect editorial impartiality.

Where such a conflict exists, responsibility for the manuscript is transferred to another editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

Following successful initial assessment, the manuscript is assigned a registration number, anonymised and forwarded for peer review.

Selection of reviewers

Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research expertise and ability to provide an independent scholarly assessment. They must not have relationships or interests that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the impartiality of their review.

As a general rule, reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors and should not have recent close research, professional, financial or personal relationships with the authors.

Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers are expected to disclose any circumstances that could constitute a conflict of interest and to decline the review where they are unable to provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewers receive an anonymised version of the manuscript together with the journal’s peer review form and instructions for reviewers.

Confidentiality of peer review

All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss or share the manuscript or information contained within it with third parties without prior authorisation from the Editorial Office.

Unpublished information, data, arguments or interpretations obtained through the peer review process must not be used for the reviewer’s personal or professional advantage.

These confidentiality requirements apply both during and after completion of the review process.

Assessment criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript with particular consideration of:

• its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• the originality and significance of the research;
• the clarity and appropriateness of the research question or objectives;
• the adequacy and transparency of the methodology;
• the validity and interpretation of the results;
• the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the findings;
• the quality and relevance of the literature used;
• the theoretical and/or practical contribution of the study;
• compliance with relevant research and publication ethics standards;
• the clarity, coherence and overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide reasoned, constructive and sufficiently detailed comments to support their recommendations.

Reviewer recommendations

Following their assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• accept for publication;
• accept subject to minor revisions;
• major revisions required;
• reject.

A recommendation for revision or rejection should be accompanied by clear and reasoned comments explaining the principal issues identified in the manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor after considering the reviewers’ reports, the authors’ responses, the journal’s editorial requirements and any relevant ethical considerations.

Revision and re-review

Where revisions are requested, the corresponding author receives the reviewers’ comments without information identifying the reviewers

Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed or, where a suggested change has not been made, providing a reasoned explanation.

Manuscripts requiring major revision may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to other suitably qualified reviewers for further assessment. Minor revisions may be assessed by the responsible editor where additional external review is not considered necessary.

A request for revision does not constitute a commitment to publish the manuscript. The revised manuscript may be rejected if the substantive concerns raised during peer review have not been adequately addressed.

Editorial decision

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorised editor on the basis of the reviewers’ reports, the authors’ responses to those reports, the scientific quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.

The Editor-in-Chief must not participate in editorial decisions concerning manuscripts for which they have a conflict of interest. Such manuscripts are handled independently by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another suitably qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

The same principle applies to manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board. Their position within the journal must not influence the peer review process or the final publication decision. Appropriate safeguards must be used to ensure independent editorial handling.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript, irrespective of the outcome of individual stages of the review process.

Peer review timeframes

Typical reviewer deadline: 2-4 weeks.

Typical time to first editorial decision: 4-8 weeks.

The duration of the review process may vary depending on the subject area, reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript and whether additional rounds of revision or review are required.