Peer Review Process

Free University Journal of Asian Studies operates a double-blind peer review process, which means the identities of both reviewers and authors and their instructional affiliations are concealed from each other throughout the review. All contributions are initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for suitability for the journal. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates submitted manuscripts from the point of view of compliance with the topics and formal requirements of the journal. If the article does not comply with the subject matter of the journal, it is excluded from revision, and the author is notified about it. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper.

The review usually takes 1-2 months. The review process is external. The reviewer cannot be represented by the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed manuscripts, as well by an employee of the organization where they are affiliated.

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must not be exposed to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Unpublished manuscripts and their contents are not to be used for research by reviewers or editors without written consent provided by the authors. This applies to all reviewers, including those who reject the review invitation.

Reviews are conducted objectively, and observations are articulated clearly with accompanying arguments for authors to use to improve the manuscript. Reviewers are to identify any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published or unpublished work.

The reviewer provides the Editor-in-Chief with an overall recommendation:

1. The article should be accepted.
2. The article needs revisions and may be resubmitted.
3. The article should be rejected (mentioning the reasons).

The review includes:

– Evaluation of the paper content and judgment on whether it is suitable for publication.

– Enumeration of methodology and tool errors (if there are any).

– Suggestions for the text improvement.

The author of the submitted article is given an opportunity to read the text of the review, which is sent to the author by e-mail or through the official site of the Journal – OJS/PKP Platform. The expert remains anonymous.

If the reviewer recommends major or minor revisions, the Editor-in-Chief sends a decision letter to the author suggesting that the recommendations should be accepted for a revised variant of the article or rejected argumentatively.

The list of reviewers’ recommendations that may be the reason for the rejection of the manuscript:

– Absence of references;

– Material reduplication (publishing the material or its major part in other journals);

– Absence or uncertainty of the conclusion;

– Absence of abstract, keywords, and other obligatory parts within the structure of the article.

If the article is rejected, the information containing comments is sent to the author.

The Editor-in-Chief decides which manuscripts are to be published by taking into consideration the validity, novelty, and originality of the paper, its importance to readers and researchers, and the peer-review reports.

In case of contradictory verdicts from two reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief may make a decision on publication or choose to send the article to a third expert. Based on the verdict of the third expert, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles.    

The article is rejected without the right to resubmission in case of proven plagiarism or fabrication of the results.