peer-review Process

Picture
Articles in this journal have undergone a rigorous double-blind peer review system, based on initial editor screening and involving in-country and international refereeing, ensures that articles meet the standards of quality. Reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), & the author(s) do not know the identity of the reviewer. All articles submitted to this journal is initially assessed (in-house screening) by the EIC for overall suitability for the journal. 

New submissions go through an in-house quality control check to ensure adherence to our policies and requirements, including:
  • relevance with journal scope
  • financial disclosures
  • competing interests
  • citation and referencing
Manuscripts will not be seen by an Associate Editor or peer reviewers until they pass this check.

If an article is deemed suitable it is assigned to an Editorial Board Member (Associate Editor) who scrutinizes the article even more closely, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review. The associate editor will use the Grammarly and Paperrater software for checking the originality of submissions received. If the associate editor feels that the article is not yet ready for peer-review, he sends it back to the Author with an explanation of why the article is not ready and what might help it to be more suitable for the journal.

Submissions considered suitable for peer review are assigned to minimum one independent experts, who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology. Asian Business Review operates the review process which is expected to take period around 7 to 40 days. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Reviewers will be asked to consider whether or not the submission is suitable for the Asian Business Review audience. Based on the reviewer reports the associate editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. If major revisions are requested, then re-submitted files will be sent for a second round of review. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who is supported by an Associate Editor.  

​Reviewers will make one of four recommendations:
  • Accept submission: no revisions are required other than those that would normally be carried out during the copy-editing/proof-reading process.
  • Revisions required: the submission would be acceptable for publication if minor revisions were made as outlined in your reviewers comments. The editorial team will be responsible for checking that the revisions have been completed satisfactorily.
  • Resubmit for review: the submission is relevant for the ABR audience and has the potential to be of publishable quality. It requires major revisions and should be resubmitted for review.
  • Decline submission: the submission is unfortunately not relevant for the ABR audience.​
The authors will receive an unsigned copy of the referees’ reports and editor's pen.
Acceptance and rejection notification will be sent to all authors. 
Once accepted for publication, the corresponding author is encouraged to send the revised version of the manuscript.
Authors should submit only papers that have been carefully proof read and polished.
Before revised submission please make sure that the submission is prepared after proofreading and grammar checking according to editor's pen.
This ensures fast processing and publication.