Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy
The Asian Journal of Information Science and Technology (AJIST) uses a double-blind peer-review process to support the quality, validity, originality, relevance, and integrity of the scholarly work it publishes. Under this model, the identities of authors are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are withheld from authors.

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers under a double-blind peer-review process. 

Reviewers are selected for their scholarly competence and independence and are not involved in the journal's editorial decision-making for the manuscript under review. The final decision to accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor on the basis of scholarly merit, reviewer reports, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope.

Peer review provides expert advice to support editorial decisions; it does not guarantee acceptance or publication. AJIST does not guarantee a fixed or unusually short review period because the time required depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions, and the need for additional expert assessment.

1. Objectives of Peer Review

  • Evaluate the originality, scholarly significance, methodological soundness, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
  • Provide constructive and evidence-based feedback that may help authors strengthen their work.
  • Promote impartial assessment by reducing the influence of author identity, affiliation, nationality, or geographical location.
  • Identify ethical, integrity, reporting, citation, data, or methodological concerns that may require clarification or further review.
  • Support fair and independent editorial decision-making while protecting confidentiality.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Workflow
2.1 Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscript and required supporting files through the AJIST online submission system. Authors must follow the Author Guidelines and ensure that identifying information is separated from the anonymised manuscript where required for double-blind review.

2.2 Administrative and Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial office and an editor conduct an initial assessment before external review. This may include checks for:

  • alignment with AJIST's Aims and Scope;
  • completeness of submission files and required declarations;
  • basic scholarly quality and clarity;
  • originality, duplicate or redundant submission, and similarity concerns;
  • ethical approval, informed consent, conflicts of interest, funding, data-availability, and other integrity requirements where applicable;
  • compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and publication policies.

A manuscript may be returned to the author for completion or clarification, or declined at the editorial stage if it is outside the journal's scope, does not meet basic scholarly or ethical requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for external peer review.

2.3 Reviewer Selection and Independence

For manuscripts proceeding to external review, the editor normally invites at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewer selection is based on relevant research experience, scholarly expertise, publication record, and the ability to provide an objective assessment.

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. A reviewer should decline the review if a financial, professional, personal, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or other relationship could reasonably affect impartiality. The editor may invite additional reviewers when suitable reviewers decline or when additional expertise is required.

2.4 External Review

Reviewers receive an anonymised manuscript and assess it independently. The review normally considers:

  • originality and contribution to knowledge;
  • relevance to the journal's scope and readership;
  • appropriateness and transparency of methods or methodology;
  • validity, reliability, and interpretation of results or findings;
  • clarity, organisation, and quality of scholarly presentation;
  • appropriateness and accuracy of tables, figures, references, and supporting material;
  • ethical compliance, research integrity, and disclosure requirements where applicable;
  • whether conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.

2.5 Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide written comments for the editor and, where appropriate, constructive comments for the authors. A reviewer may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept: Suitable for publication without substantive revision, subject to final editorial checks.

Minor Revision: Publication may be considered after limited changes or clarifications.

Major Revision: Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

2.6 Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the decision automatically. The handling editor assesses the reviewer reports together with the manuscript's scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to AJIST. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor makes the editorial decision.

If reviewer reports conflict materially, the editor may seek clarification, invite an additional independent reviewer, or make a decision based on a reasoned editorial assessment of the manuscript and the available expert reports.

2.7 Revision and Re-Review

Where revision is requested, authors receive the relevant anonymised reviewer and editorial comments and are asked to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response. Authors should address each substantive comment and explain clearly where a suggestion has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when the editor considers further expert assessment necessary. More than one round of revision may be required.

2.8 Final Decision and Production

Following review of the revised manuscript and any additional reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor makes the final decision. Acceptance is conditional on satisfactory completion of editorial, ethical, technical, and production requirements. After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, formatting, proofing, and publication.

3. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished information are confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss a manuscript with third parties without prior editorial permission and must not contact authors directly. Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.

Reviewers and editors must also comply with AJIST's Generative AI Policy. Confidential or unpublished manuscript material must not be uploaded to publicly accessible AI systems or other services whose data-handling terms could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or the integrity of peer review.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose conflicts of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality. Where a relevant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation and an editor should recuse themselves from handling or deciding the manuscript. Another qualified editor or reviewer should be appointed where necessary.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Accept review assignments only when the manuscript is within the reviewer's expertise and the review can be completed responsibly.
  • Provide an objective, respectful, evidence-based, and constructive assessment without personal criticism of the authors.
  • Treat the manuscript and review process as confidential.
  • Identify significant uncited work, suspected plagiarism, data or image manipulation, fabrication, falsification, or other ethical concerns and report them confidentially to the editor.
  • Do not request irrelevant citations or citations primarily intended to increase citation counts or metrics.
  • Do not use unpublished manuscript content for personal research or advantage.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest promptly and decline the review when independence may be compromised.

6. Editorial Responsibilities and Independence

Editors are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers, managing conflicts of interest, safeguarding confidentiality, assessing reviewer reports, and making fair editorial decisions. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to AJIST's scope.

Editorial decisions are independent of Article Processing Charges, an author's ability to pay, waiver or discount status, advertising, sponsorship, ownership interests, marketing activity, or other commercial considerations.

7. Ethical Concerns, Data Integrity and Research Misconduct

Reviewers and editors should report concerns about plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, citation manipulation, unethical authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, peer-review manipulation, or other research-integrity issues. Authors may be asked to provide supporting data, methodological details, ethics documentation, image files, analysis records, or other information when necessary to evaluate the validity or reproducibility of the work.

Concerns are handled in accordance with AJIST's Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement and, where applicable, relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

8. Special Issues and Invited Manuscripts

Special-issue manuscripts, invited manuscripts, and supplementary scholarly content are subject to the same standards of editorial screening, reviewer independence, peer-review integrity, conflicts-of-interest management, confidentiality, and publication ethics as regular submissions. Guest Editors do not have authority to bypass AJIST's peer-review or ethical requirements.

9. Review Time and Publication Timelines

AJIST aims to conduct peer review and editorial decision-making efficiently, but review times vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number and extent of revisions, and whether additional expert review is required. The journal does not guarantee acceptance, publication, or a fixed review time.

Where AJIST publishes historical peer-review performance metrics on its Journal Insights page, those figures are descriptive of past journal performance and should not be interpreted as guaranteed processing times for individual submissions.

10. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a material error in the peer-review or decision process may submit a written appeal to the editorial office. The appeal should identify the manuscript, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and respond specifically to the relevant editorial or reviewer concerns.

Appeals are considered fairly and do not guarantee reconsideration, acceptance, or publication. Where appropriate, an appeal may be reviewed by a senior editor or other qualified person who was not responsible for the original decision.

11. Editorial Office

Questions concerning the peer-review process may be addressed to the AJIST editorial office:

Centre for Research and Innovation (CRI), 9/865, Maruthi Nagar, Rakkipalayam Post, Coimbatore - 641031, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: editorial@crijournals.org