Last updated: 4 August 2026
1. Manuscript Submission
- All manuscripts must be submitted through ajisiresearch.com using the official journal template. Authors are advised to read every comment inside the template — it is written to the journal's standards, and following it removes most of the reasons manuscripts get returned.
- Formatting must follow APA 7th Edition throughout: structure, in-text citations and reference list.
- A submission is one file: a single Word document (
.docor.docx) containing your cover letter, followed by the manuscript, followed by your ethics clearance details and any figures and tables. Nothing else is uploaded. - Ethical compliance is required where applicable — for example, ethics review board approval for studies involving human participants. State the institution name and clearance number in the document.
- Do not submit a PDF. Copyediting and layout work directly on the Word file. The journal produces the published PDF after acceptance.
2. Initial Editorial Checking
The Editorial Assistant acknowledges receipt and verifies that the submission is complete: all required files present, necessary declarations made, and formatting guidelines followed.
Where anything is missing or incorrectly formatted, this is communicated to the authors promptly. Only once every submission criterion is met are the materials forwarded to the Managing Editor.
3. Editorial Screening
The Managing Editor assesses each manuscript against four things:
- Scope — does the work sit within the journal's focus and subject areas?
- Originality — does it present new ideas or approaches that contribute meaningfully to the field?
- Relevance — does it speak to current discussion within the discipline?
- Ethical standards — proper citation, no plagiarism, declarations in order.
A submission that falls outside scope, fails on originality or relevance, or does not comply with ethical requirements is either returned to the authors with constructive feedback or rejected outright, depending on how serious the problem is.
4. Double-blind Review
Each manuscript is evaluated by two independent experts in the relevant field. Author and reviewer identities are withheld from each other throughout, so that the assessment is unbiased.
Reviewers work from the journal's peer review evaluation form and assess:
- Rigour of the research methodology
- Clarity and coherence of the writing
- Contribution to interdisciplinary scholarship
- Adherence to APA formatting and citation standards
Where the two evaluations conflict significantly, a third reviewer is appointed to provide additional insight and help reach a settled view.
The Four Recommendations
| Recommendation | What it means |
|---|---|
| Accept (no revisions) | Ready for publication as submitted. The study is original, methodologically sound, well written and compliant with ethical and formatting standards. Nothing further is required beyond copyediting and layout. |
| Minor revisions | Fundamentally strong but needing small adjustments — clarifying points, correcting formatting or citations, refining language, adding detail to strengthen an argument. Authors revise quickly and the manuscript does not usually go back out for a further full round of review. |
| Major revisions | Shows potential but needs substantial change to meet scholarly standards: restructuring sections, clarifying methodology, expanding analysis, strengthening theoretical grounding, or addressing gaps in the literature. Authors must supply a detailed response letter explaining how each comment was addressed, and the revised manuscript normally returns to the reviewers. |
| Reject | Does not meet the journal's scholarly, ethical or formatting standards — through lack of originality, weak methodology, poor fit with scope, or failure to meet ethical requirements. Authors may be encouraged to improve the work and resubmit as a new submission, but this version proceeds no further. |
5. Reviewer Recommendations
Once reviewers have submitted their evaluations, the Editorial Assistant consolidates all feedback into a single Consolidated Peer Review Evaluation Form, summarising comments, suggestions and final recommendations.
| Stage | Who | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Consolidation | Editorial Assistant | Organises reviewer reports into a unified document and communicates it to authors |
| Oversight | Managing Editor | Ensures comments are clear and constructive, and approves the consolidated form |
| Communication | Editorial Assistant | Authors receive the consolidated evaluation form and the template again, with instructions for revision |
| Compliance tracking | Editorial office | Authors have one to two weeks to address the comments, referring to specific remarks and page numbers |
If you disagree with a reviewer's suggestion, you may contest it — indicate clearly in your response which points you have not followed, and why. A reasoned disagreement is part of peer review, not a breach of it.
6. Before Revisions and Final Decision
Revised manuscripts and the consolidated evaluation form are returned to the reviewers, or, where the revisions are modest, to the Managing Editor alone. Reviewers verify whether their concerns have been sufficiently addressed.
The Editor-in-Chief renders the final decision, based on the reviewers' affirmation and the overall standard of the revised manuscript, and issues the official verdict on publication.
Ready to Submit?
Start with the official template — it carries the journal's formatting requirements as inline comments.