Peer Review Process

Afro-Asian Studies is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, scientific integrity, and ethical publishing. All research articles submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous peer-review process designed to ensure their originality, scholarly relevance, methodological soundness, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal’s scope and meets its basic requirements for academic quality, originality, ethical compliance, and submission formatting. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements, fall outside the journal’s scope, or fail to satisfy the journal’s submission guidelines may be rejected at this stage.

The journal may use plagiarism-detection software to identify potential overlap with previously published material and assess compliance with publication ethics.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. The journal adopts a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the research;

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of Afro-Asian Studies;

  • Theoretical framework and engagement with relevant literature;

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

  • Accuracy and coherence of the analysis and interpretation;

  • Clarity of presentation, structure, and academic writing;

  • Quality, relevance, and accuracy of references;

  • Compliance with applicable research ethics standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential assessments within the timeframe specified by the editorial team.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment, one of the following decisions may be issued:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revisions.

  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited amendments before a final decision can be made.

  • Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s publication standards or is otherwise unsuitable for publication.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor. Reviewers provide recommendations, but editorial decisions are made independently and are not determined solely by a single reviewer’s opinion.

4. Revision and Re-evaluation

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline communicated by the editorial office, together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation cannot be followed, authors should provide a clear justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the requested changes. Failure to submit revisions within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn.

5. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage. They must also declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments where impartiality may be compromised.

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct. Any suspected ethical violation is handled in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies and applicable scholarly publishing standards.

6. Review Timeline

The journal aims to process submissions as efficiently as possible while preserving the rigor and independence of peer review. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of any required revisions. Authors are informed of editorial decisions through the journal’s online submission and editorial management system.

7. Independence of Editorial Decisions

All editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and compliance with ethical standards. The journal is committed to ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, regardless of the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnic background, political views, or other personal characteristics unrelated to the quality of the research.

Through this process, Afro-Asian Studies seeks to promote rigorous scholarship, constructive academic dialogue, and the responsible dissemination of research on Afro-Asian societies, histories, cultures, politics, economies, and related fields.