Peer Review Policy

All research articles published in the journals of the Asian Society of Human Services (ASHS) undergo peer review. Each submission is normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers. Authors who are not satisfied with the peer review decision have the right to submit an appeal to the editorial office.

Initial submission

Upon submitted, each manuscript is assigned to and editor who assesses its suitability for the journal's scope, its scientific soundness, and technical quality. Manuscripts that pass this initial screening are forwarded for external peer review.

Double-Blind peer review system

All journals published by the Asian Society of Human Services (ASHS) follow a double-blind peer review model.
- Reviewers do not know the identity or affiliations of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
- All review reports shared with authors remain anonymous.
- Reviewers access submitted manuscripts through Editorial Manager® in the case of AJHS, which serves as the submission and review system ensuring double-blind confidentiality. For TRR and JIE, the journals utilize the Editorial Board system as a submission and peer review support platform; all submitted manuscripts are anonymized prior to being distributed for double-blind peer review.
- In AJHS, authors may propose potential reviewers within the submission system; however, the editorial office is not obligated to follow these suggestions. Even when such suggestions are taken into consideration, at least one reviewer must be selected independently of the authors’ recommendations.

Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

Reviewer selection is critical to the quality and credibility of the journal. Editors consider expertise, reputation, recommendations conflict of interest, and prior reviewing performance. Editors must:
- Secure at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript.
- Independently verify the identity and contact information of any author-suggested reviewers.
- Ensure that at least one reviewer is not suggested by the authors. In exceptional cases, if two independent reviewers cannot be secured, the assigned editor may serve as a reviewer, provided that:
- The editor has demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
- The editor's role as reviewer is explicitly documented to maintain transparency.

All reviewers are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting an invitation. All communications between editors and reviewers are strictly confidential.

Reviewer misconduct and ethical compliance

All journals adhere to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewer misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
- Falsification of reviewer credentials
- Suggesting fake reviewers
- Plagiarism or misuse of confidential information from manuscripts
- Breach of confidentiality in communications

Any confirmed misconduct will lead to strict corrective actions, including notifying institutions and banning future reviewing or publishing privileges.

Editorial decisions

Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief (or a delegated editor) makes one of the following decisions:
- Accept - The manuscript is ready for publication.
- Revision - The manuscript requires small changes, substantial revision, additional analysis, or new data that do not affect its main findings.
- Resubmission - The topic is academic interest, but the manuscript does not comply with submission guidelines or requires further significant results.
- Reject - The manuscript is unsuitable for publication.

Final Proofs and Corrections

Once all revisions and editorial processes are complete, the manuscripts is formally accepted.
- The received date reflects when the manuscript first passes technical checks.
- The revised date indicates the day on which the manuscript, incorporating all post-review revisions, is finally submitted.
- The accepted date reflects when the Editor-in-Chief issued the acceptance notice.
- The published date reflects when the manuscript officially published in website.

After acceptance, proofs are provided to authors. At this stage, only essential corrections are permitted (e.g., errors in the title, author list, or technical formatting). No changes to data, results, or interpretations are allowed. All corrections must be approved by the publishing team. Please refer to the Society’s Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement for detailed information on procedures and requirements related to publication.

> Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The journal welcome genuine appeals to reviewer decisions. However, the author will need to provide strong evidence or new data and information in response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. Editors and reviewers don’t expect frequent appeals and will rarely reverse their original decisions. Therefore, if the author receive a decision to reject their manuscript, the author are strongly advised to submit to another journal.

How to Submit an Appeal

If the author believe that their article has been rejected unfairly, please submit an appeal letter to the journal’s online editorial office. Please address this to the editor and clearly explain the basis for an appeal. All appeals must be submitted within 30 days of the rejection decision. The author should:
- Detail why you disagree with the decision. Please provide specific responses to any of the editor’s or reviewers’ comments that contributed to the reject decision.
- Provide any new data or information that you would like the journal to take into consideration.
- Provide evidence if the author believe a reviewer has made technical errors in their assessment of the author's manuscript.

Handling Complaints about the Review

Complaints about the journal’s review processes will in the first instance be handled by the editor responsible for the journal. If the reviewer’s decision is the subject of the complaint, please approach the journal’s online editorial office. For complaints about processes, such as time taken for review, the editor will review and respond to the complainant’s concerns. This feedback will be provided to relevant stakeholders to further improvements to processes and procedures.

Published 1, March, 2022
Last updated 8, December, 2025