| FOCUS AND SCOPE |
| EDITORIAL BOARD |
| REVIEWER |
| AUTHOR GUIDELINES |
| PEER REVIEWER |
| PUBLICATION ETHICS |
| COPYRIGHT NOTICE |
| CONTACT US |
| INFORMATION |
| FOR READERS |
| FOR AUTHORS |
| FOR LIBRARIANS |
| JOURNAL TEMPLATE |
 |
| TOOLS |
     |
Peer Review
Peer Review Policy
```Southeast Asia Journal of Current Research and Studies (SAJRAS) upholds a rigorous, objective, and transparent peer-review process to maintain academic integrity and ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly works. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a structured peer evaluation to assess its relevance, originality, methodological rigor, analytical quality, and scholarly contribution to Southeast Asian studies, governance, public policy, social sciences, humanities, and related multidisciplinary fields.
```1. Introduction
```The peer-review process is designed to ensure that all manuscripts published in the journal meet acceptable standards of academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, and scientific relevance. Through this process, the journal aims to support reliable scholarly communication, strengthen academic dialogue, and promote the dissemination of credible research findings.
```2. Double-Blind Peer Review
```Southeast Asia Journal of Current Research and Studies (SAJRAS) applies a double-blind peer-review system. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.
This mechanism is implemented to ensure neutrality, minimize potential bias, and promote constructive academic evaluation. All author-identifying information is removed before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, while reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, and contribution to the field.
```3. Peer Review Stages
```The peer-review process in Southeast Asia Journal of Current Research and Studies (SAJRAS) consists of three main stages: initial editorial screening, external peer review, and final editorial decision. Each stage is carried out to ensure that the manuscript is evaluated carefully, fairly, and consistently.
```Stage I: Initial Editorial Screening
```All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the editorial team to determine their suitability for full peer review. The editorial screening process evaluates the manuscript’s compliance with journal requirements, including academic relevance, originality, formatting, language quality, and alignment with the journal’s focus and scope.
1. Plagiarism Check
Each manuscript is examined for textual similarity using plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 20% may be returned to the author for revision or rejected. Authors may receive a similarity report accompanied by editorial notes when necessary.
2. Scope and Relevance
The editorial team conducts an initial verification to ensure that the submitted manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus, scope, and objectives. This includes evaluating the relevance of the topic, the scholarly contribution, and the consistency of the manuscript with the journal’s academic domain.
3. Currency and Relevance of Citations
Authors are expected to cite recent, relevant, and high-quality sources, particularly those published within the last five years, to ensure scholarly relevance and engagement with current academic debates.
4. Language and Structure
Manuscripts may be submitted in English. Each manuscript must demonstrate clarity, logical structure, proper grammar, and adherence to the journal’s formatting guidelines. Manuscripts with excessive language or structural problems may be returned to authors for revision before further review.
The initial editorial screening is typically completed within 7 working days. Manuscripts that meet the required criteria will proceed to the external peer-review stage.
```Stage II: External Peer Review
```Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers may come from the editorial board or from external academic and professional networks.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on academic merit, originality, clarity, methodological quality, theoretical contribution, empirical evidence, and relevance to the journal’s focus and scope.
Evaluation Criteria
- Originality and contribution to the field.
- Theoretical and conceptual clarity.
- Methodological rigor, including qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method approaches.
- Relevance to Southeast Asian studies, governance, public policy, society, development, or related fields.
- Clarity of argument and organization.
- Strength of empirical evidence, conceptual analysis, or case studies.
Reviewer Recommendations
- Accept with minor revisions.
- Accept with moderate revisions.
- Major revisions required.
- Reject with explanation.
If conflicting reviewer recommendations arise, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer for further assessment. All reviewer comments are anonymized and provided to the author or authors as constructive feedback.
This stage is generally completed within 1 to 4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
```Stage III: Final Editorial Decision
```After the peer-review process is completed, the editor evaluates the original manuscript, the revised manuscript when applicable, and the recommendations provided by reviewers. The final decision is made based on the manuscript’s academic quality, reviewer feedback, revision quality, and overall suitability for publication.
Editorial Decision Options
- Accept the manuscript as submitted.
- Accept with minor revisions.
- Request major revisions.
- Resubmit for an additional round of peer review.
- Reject the manuscript.
Authors will be provided with clear instructions for revision when necessary. In cases requiring further academic evaluation, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers.
Accepted manuscripts will be scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue of the journal and will proceed to the copyediting, proofreading, layout, and production stages before final publication.
```4. Revision and Author Response
```Authors who are requested to revise their manuscripts must respond carefully to all reviewer and editor comments. The revised manuscript should be submitted through the online submission system together with a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.
- Authors should revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewer suggestions.
- Authors should provide a clear explanation for any reviewer suggestion that is not followed.
- Revisions must be submitted within the deadline determined by the editorial team.
- Failure to submit revisions within the required period may result in the manuscript being treated as a new submission.
5. Confidentiality
```All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are not permitted to disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, or the publisher when appropriate.
```6. Reviewer Ethics
```Reviewers are expected to conduct fair, objective, constructive, and timely evaluations. They must maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript under review and must not use unpublished materials for personal benefit or research purposes.
- Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest.
- Reviewers should provide constructive comments to improve the manuscript.
- Reviewers should identify potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, redundant publication, or data fabrication.
- Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on academic quality and not on personal, institutional, political, or other non-academic considerations.
7. Editorial Independence
```Editorial decisions are made independently based on the academic merit of the manuscript and the recommendations of reviewers. Decisions are not influenced by commercial interests, political considerations, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, or other non-academic factors.
```8. Commitment to Academic Quality
```Through the implementation of a rigorous double-blind peer-review system, Southeast Asia Journal of Current Research and Studies (SAJRAS) is committed to maintaining publication quality, strengthening research integrity, supporting ethical scholarly communication, and promoting the advancement of knowledge in Southeast Asian studies and related multidisciplinary fields.
```
