Review Guidelines

In alignment with its commitment to transparency and academic integrity, the Academic Journal for Research and Scientific Publishing provides the following peer review guidelines. This document aims to clarify the evaluation standards reviewers should adopt when assessing submitted manuscripts. It serves as a foundational reference to ensure objective, rigorous, and high-quality scientific assessments in accordance with globally recognized academic publishing norms.

1. Originality and Significance of the Research

- The novelty and originality of the research idea.
- The study’s contribution to advancing knowledge in its field.
- Relevance to current academic interests or practical applications.

2. Clarity of the Research Problem and Objectives

- A clearly defined and well-articulated research problem.
- Specific and coherent research objectives aligned with the problem.
- Proper formulation of research questions or hypotheses.

3. Literature Review and Theoretical Background

- Comprehensive and up-to-date review of relevant literature.
- Identification of research gaps the study aims to address.
- Effective integration of previous studies to support the problem and theoretical framing.

4. Theoretical Framework

- A clear and coherent theoretical framework.
- Logical explanation of relationships between variables or key concepts.
- Use of established theories or models where applicable.

5. Methodology and Research Design

- Clarity in the type and design of the study (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, etc.).
- Appropriateness of the methodology to the research objectives and questions.
- Detailed description of the study population, sampling techniques, and measurement tools.
- Explanation of data collection procedures and analysis methods.
- Ethical considerations and protection of participants’ rights.

6. Quality of Data Analysis and Results

- Accuracy and appropriateness of the statistical or qualitative analyses.
- Clear and logical presentation of results.
- Use of tables, figures, or charts where necessary to support findings.

7. Discussion and Interpretation of Results

- Integration of findings with existing literature.
- Logical explanation of findings, including agreements or discrepancies with prior studies.
- Reflection on study limitations and implications for generalizability.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

- Clear and evidence-based conclusions drawn from the results.
- Practical and/or theoretical recommendations consistent with the findings.
- Suggestions for future research directions.

9. Language and Compliance with Journal Formatting

- Clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy of the manuscript.
- Use of precise and field-appropriate terminology.
- Logical organization and smooth progression of content.
- Adherence to the APA 7th edition referencing style.
- Proper formatting according to the journal’s author guidelines.

10. Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewers are expected to provide one of the following final decisions based on their comprehensive evaluation:
- Accept without revisions.
- Accept with minor revisions.
- Revise and resubmit for further review (major revisions).
- Reject with justification.

The journal greatly values the contributions of its peer reviewers, recognizing them as vital partners in maintaining scientific quality. By adhering to the standards outlined in this guide, reviewers play a critical role in building trustworthy and impactful academic knowledge.

AJRSP

International peer-reviewed journal
ISSN: 2706-6495
Email: editor@ajrsp.com

Coming Issue: (75)
Submission Deadline:
27 June 2025
Date of Issue:
5 July 2025

Peer-Review statement

All articles published in this journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review by independent experts to ensure academic integrity and research quality.

Review Timeline

Initial Decision: 3 days
Review Round: 10 days

Helpful Links

Archive

Current Issue