Peer Review Policy
The Asian Bulletin of Green Management and Circular Economy (ABGMCE) follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This ensures an objective, fair, and unbiased evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.
Peer Review Process
The peer review process of ABGMCE consists of the following stages:
Initial Editorial Screening:
After submission, each manuscript is first examined by the editorial team to determine whether it fits within the scope of the journal and complies with the journal’s submission requirements. The editor evaluates the manuscript’s originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and overall academic quality before sending it for external review.
Reviewer Assignment:
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted research. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and knowledge of the manuscript topic.
Double-Blind Review:
During the review process, the identities of authors are hidden from reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed comments and recommendations regarding its academic quality, methodology, originality, and contribution to the field.
Review Evaluation Criteria:
Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:
- Originality: Whether the manuscript provides new knowledge or a significant contribution to the research field.
- Research Significance: Whether the research problem is important and relevant to the scope of ABGMCE.
- Methodological Quality: Whether the research design, methods, analysis, and interpretation of results are appropriate and scientifically valid.
- Clarity and Presentation: Whether the manuscript is clearly written, logically structured, and understandable to readers.
- Contribution and Impact: Whether the findings provide meaningful implications for researchers, practitioners, or policymakers.
Editorial Decision:
After receiving reviewer reports, the editor evaluates the recommendations and makes the final decision. The possible decisions include:
- Accept the manuscript without changes.
- Accept after minor revisions.
- Request major revisions before further consideration.
- Reject the manuscript.
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ comments, editorial assessment, and the overall quality of the manuscript.
Revision Process:
If revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript may be reviewed again by the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor before a final decision is made.
Confidentiality and Ethical Standards:
All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, use, or disclose any information from submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are also required to declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
Review Timeline:
The peer review process generally takes 6 weeks from the date of submission, depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required. ABGMCE aims to complete the review process efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards.
Through this comprehensive peer review system, ABGMCE ensures that published articles meet high standards of originality, scientific quality, and scholarly contribution.
