Handling of submitted manuscript
The Editors initially evaluate all manuscripts submitted to AJAG to determine their relevance, merit and potential interest to the journal’s readership. Those deemed suitable are forwarded for review without delay, typically to two reviewers. In some instances, additional experts—such as technical specialists—may be consulted for specific insights.
To maintain the highest standards of publication quality, the Editors monitor and evaluate the performance of reviewers. This evaluation includes assessing the quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of their reviews to ensure the overall effectiveness and integrity of the peer-review process.
Decision Quality and Objectivity
The Editor makes the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the recommendations of the reviewers. They must also provide the authors with a clear explanation for the editorial decision.
To uphold the objectivity of the editorial process, editors are expected to:
- Consider all potential competing interests during the review process and ensure that any relevant disclosures are included in the published article.
- Refrain from publishing commissioned or non-research articles if a known competing interest, in their judgment, could introduce bias or create a reasonable perception of bias.
- Avoid selecting reviewers who have competing interests that may compromise the impartiality of the review.
Editorial Independence and Appeals
AJAG upholds the principle of editorial independence and does not intervene in editorial decisions unless there is clear evidence that a submission was not managed in accordance with recognized best practices. Editors have full autonomy and authority to decide which submissions proceed to peer review and which are accepted or rejected for publication without external influence.
Submissions that are declined prior to peer review are not eligible for formal appeal. However, in cases where a manuscript has undergone peer review, appeals may be considered. Such appeals will be addressed in collaboration with the handling editor and in alignment with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, reflecting our commitment to ethical publishing and research integrity.
If an author believes there are valid grounds to appeal a rejection—such as the emergence of new evidence, a decision that appears inconsistent with journal policies, or a possible misunderstanding by reviewers—a formal appeal may be submitted. The appeal must include a detailed rationale and a comprehensive response to any reviewer comments.
To submit an appeal, the following process must be followed:
- The appeal must be submitted in writing to the journal’s Editor.
- The journal’s editorial team will review the appeal.
- The appeal will be acknowledged within 10 days of receipt, and a resolution will be provided within 60 days.
The final decision will be communicated in writing and is not subject to further appeal. Only one appeal per article is permitted.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts may arise from financial, professional, contractual, or personal relationships between the author and the Editor or reviewer. The editorial team members are expected to act professionally and to disclose any potential conflicts that could influence the handling or assessment of a submission.
Members of a journal’s editorial team are permitted to submit their work to the journal and will be held to the same standards and review procedures as all other authors. If an editor, guest editor, or editorial advisory board member is listed as an author on a submission, this must be disclosed at the time of submission. To ensure impartiality, they will be recused from any involvement in the peer review or editorial handling of that manuscript, which an independent party will instead manage. Additionally, editors, guest editors, and advisory board members should recuse themselves from handling any manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists, such as prior collaborations with the authors or affiliation with the same institution, in accordance with our peer review policies.
The reputation of the Journal relies significantly on the integrity and professionalism of its Editorial Board members. These members are expected to consistently uphold the highest standards in their conduct and editorial responsibilities.
Any concerns or allegations of misconduct by Editorial Board members should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that all relevant documentation supporting the allegation of a serious breach of publication ethics is presented to both the Journal’s Editorial Board and the UKM Publication Board for appropriate action.
Any Editorial Board member found to have engaged in unethical conduct will be removed from their editorial position. Additional penalties may also be imposed, comparable to those applied to authors found guilty of ethical violations.