IJAPS is a masked or blind peer-review journal and the general guidelines for the acceptance for publication of a submitted manuscript are outlined as follows:
Relevance.
Papers within the disciplines and areas of politics, history, religion, indigenous languages and literature, man and the environment, ethno-history, anthropology, cultural heritage, socio-economic development, war and conflict resolution, prehistory and archaeology, and the arts with geographical focus on the Asia-Pacific realm are considered. Comparative work that has at least one of the areas in the Asia-Pacific region is also acceptable.
Standard and Criteria.
Manuscripts that exhibit most of the following characteristics meet the selection criteria for publication:
- Content: Original research with significant findings that contribute to the discipline that also command a general interest.
- Presentation: Systematic and well-organized prose whereby an argument flows and is easily comprehensible.
- Language: Simple, lucid and highly intelligible to a general intellectual audience. There should be minimal usage of specialized terms, jargons or technical language; if unavoidable, an explanatory note to follow in parentheses.
Convention: Fidelity to house-style.
Manuscripts that are not accepted for publication include those that are too elementary, poorly written and/or poorly organized, incoherent, too specialized in scope, unduly technical, or excessively long. Such papers that are rejected are promptly returned to the author.
Peer-Review Process.
Submitted manuscript goes through the review process that takes between three and four months. Masked review is practiced whereby both contributor and reviewers are unknown to one another.
The Editor-in-Chief will have the first initial review of the paper on its suitability and relevance often consulting with members of the Editorial Panel. If appropriate, reviewers are identified again through consultations with the Editorial Panel and/or the International Advisory Board. Once review reports are received, the contents are noted by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Panel.
If the review reports are unfavourable, the Editor-in-Chief in discussion with the Editorial Panel decides whether an outright rejection is advisable or to seek another reviewer before final decision is made. In the event of rejection, the author of the paper is promptly notified. If the reviews are encouraging, the author is also promptly notified; the review reports are enclosed for the author to undertake revisions in line with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.
The revised paper when received by the Editor-in-Chief will again be evaluated to ensure that all issues raised by the reviewers have been addressed. If deemed necessary, the revised paper is forwarded to the reviewers for another reading. When all quarters are satisfied, the author is notified that his/her paper has gone through the review process and is now accepted for publication in a forthcoming issue of the journal.
