Peer Review Policy

  1. Purpose of Peer Review

Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research (AJEER) applies a rigorous peer review system to safeguard the academic quality, originality, and ethical integrity of the research it publishes. Peer review is intended to support authors in improving their manuscripts, assist editors in reaching balanced publication decisions, and ensure that published articles provide reliable, evidence-based contributions to economics and empirical research.

AJEER is committed to conducting peer review in a fair, objective, confidential, and timely manner, consistent with international standards of scholarly publishing.

  1. Peer Review Model: Double-Blind Review

All manuscripts submitted to AJEER are peer-reviewed using the double-blind review process. In this system, reviewers do not know the identity of authors, and authors do not know the identity of reviewers.

Author anonymity is maintained to prevent any potential reviewer bias based on factors such as an author’s country of origin, institutional affiliation, identity, or previous controversial work. AJEER further ensures that manuscripts written by highly reputed authors are judged solely on the scholarly quality of the submitted work. The reputation or public standing of any author is considered incidental to editorial evaluation and does not influence publication decisions.

Authors must remove all identifying information from manuscripts, file properties, acknowledgements, and supplementary files before submission. Manuscripts that do not satisfy anonymization requirements may be returned to authors for correction prior to external review.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission undergoes a preliminary assessment by the Editorial Office and/or the Editor-in-Chief to confirm that:

  1. the manuscript fits the aims and scope of AJEER;
  2. the topic is relevant to economics and empirical research;
  3. the work demonstrates sufficient originality and academic merit;
  4. the manuscript complies with formatting and submission instructions; and
  5. no obvious ethical concerns are present.

Submissions that fall outside the journal’s scope or fail to meet baseline standards may be rejected at this stage without external review.

  1. Plagiarism Screening and Originality Check

All manuscripts submitted to AJEER are checked for plagiarism, including duplicate publication and self-plagiarism, following the standards and procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

AJEER uses Crossref’s Similarity Check (CrossCheck), powered by iThenticate, as the primary tool for detecting textual overlap and ensuring originality. AJEER is a Crossref member and uses similarity checking tools recommended by Crossref.

If significant overlap or plagiarism is identified, the journal may:

  • reject the manuscript immediately;
  • request an explanation or correction from authors; or
  • initiate an ethics investigation depending on the seriousness of the case.
  1. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening and plagiarism checks are sent to independent reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • alignment of expertise with the manuscript topic (e.g., econometrics, macroeconomics, microeconomics, finance, development economics, or related empirical fields);
  • a strong research and publication record;
  • absence of conflict of interest; and
  • ability to provide a review within the requested timeframe.

AJEER typically assigns at least two reviewers to each manuscript. Additional reviewers may be appointed where specialist input is required.

Authors may suggest suitable reviewers or request exclusion of specific individuals, with reasons. However, the final selection remains at the editors’ discretion to protect the integrity and independence of the review process.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide a professional, objective, and constructive appraisal of manuscripts. Their evaluation should be based strictly on scholarly merit and evidence. Reviewers must:

  • assess the manuscript fairly and without bias;
  • provide clear, detailed, and academically justified comments;
  • avoid personal criticism or discriminatory language;
  • maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review correspondence;
  • declare any conflicts of interest immediately; and
  • notify the editor if they cannot complete the review within the agreed time.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts with others or use unpublished material for personal advantage.

  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate submissions using criteria relevant to economics and empirical research, including:

  1. Originality and Contribution: Whether the paper offers new insights, meaningful empirical findings, or theoretical advancement in economics.
  2. Relevance to AJEER: Whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims, scope, and audience.
  3. Methodological Soundness: Whether the econometric/modeling approach is appropriate, rigorously applied, and clearly explained.
  4. Data and Analysis Quality: Whether data sources are credible; analysis is transparent; and results are robust and replicable.
  5. Engagement with Literature: Whether the manuscript reflects strong grounding in relevant literature and accurate citation.
  6. Clarity of Structure and Writing: Whether the argument is logical, coherent, and written in an academically clear manner.
  7. Validity of Conclusions: Whether interpretations are supported by the presented evidence and limitations are acknowledged.
  8. Ethical Compliance: Whether ethical approvals and disclosures are documented when required.
  1. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

After review, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

The handling editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes a decision based on their recommendations and the journal’s standards. Reviewer judgments are advisory; the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor.

Authors receive anonymized reviewer reports along with a formal editorial decision letter.

  1. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must submit:

  1. a revised manuscript; and
  2. a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the editor. Major revisions are commonly returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. If the revision does not satisfactorily address reviewer and editorial concerns, the manuscript may be rejected.

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made in error or was procedurally unfair may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office at [info@asianonlinejournals.com]. Appeals must present a clear scholarly rationale. The Editor-in-Chief will review the case and may uphold the decision, consult additional reviewers, or reconsider the manuscript. The decision on appeal is final.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2015). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. COPE.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. COPE.

Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. The BMJ, 323, 1103–1105. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103