AMERICAN JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

At the American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR), we are committed to ensuring that all submissions undergo a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer review process. Our peer review process is uniquely tailored to reflect the journal’s mission of advancing qualitative research across various disciplines.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

AJQR follows a double-blind peer review system. In this process, both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This approach helps minimize bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated based solely on their academic merit.

  • Author Anonymity: Authors are required to submit their manuscripts without identifying information, ensuring that reviewers assess the content without preconceived opinions about the authors’ affiliations or reputations.
  • Reviewer Anonymity: Reviewers' identities are kept confidential to promote honest and objective feedback.

2. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are carefully selected from AJQR’s pool of experts, ensuring that their expertise aligns with the manuscript’s subject matter. We prioritize selecting reviewers who are not only well-versed in qualitative research methods but also familiar with the specific themes and regions discussed in the submission.

  • Diversity in Expertise: AJQR emphasizes the importance of diverse academic perspectives, and we strive to include reviewers from different cultural and geographic backgrounds to provide comprehensive feedback.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer will be excused from the process.

3. Review Criteria

Manuscripts submitted to AJQR are evaluated based on several key criteria:

  • Originality: The manuscript must offer novel insights into qualitative research, theory, or practice. Submissions that replicate existing work without adding significant new perspectives may not be accepted.
  • Methodological Rigor: Reviewers assess whether the research methods are appropriate for the research questions and whether they are executed with rigor and transparency.
  • Theoretical Contribution: The manuscript should provide a meaningful contribution to the body of knowledge in its field, offering theoretical insights that advance the discipline.
  • Clarity and Structure: Manuscripts must be clearly written, logically structured, and accessible to a broad academic audience.
  • Ethical Considerations: Reviewers will assess whether the research adheres to the highest ethical standards, particularly when vulnerable populations are involved.

4. Review Process and Timeline

AJQR is committed to an efficient yet thorough review process. Upon submission, manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial team to ensure they meet the journal’s submission guidelines. If the manuscript passes this initial check, it is sent for peer review.

  • Initial Screening: The editorial team evaluates the manuscript’s adherence to basic guidelines (e.g., formatting, word count) and its fit within the scope of the journal.
  • Review Timeline: The review process typically takes 6-8 weeks. Reviewers are asked to provide their feedback within this timeframe to ensure timely decisions for authors.
  • Reviewer Feedback: After the review is complete, authors receive detailed, constructive feedback. Reviewers are encouraged to highlight both strengths and areas for improvement, with an emphasis on enhancing the manuscript’s quality.

5. Decision Making

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor-in-chief or an assigned handling editor will make a decision. The possible outcomes are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes before it can be accepted.
  • Major Revisions: Significant revisions are necessary, and the revised manuscript will undergo further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

In cases where reviewers offer conflicting recommendations, the editor may seek input from additional reviewers or make a final decision based on their judgment.

6. Appeals and Revisions

Authors who receive a decision of “major revisions” or “rejection” have the right to appeal. Appeals must be well-founded and address specific concerns raised by reviewers or editors.

  • Appeals Process: Authors may submit an appeal letter outlining their arguments for reconsideration. The editorial board will review the appeal and make a final decision.
  • Revised Submissions: Authors who are invited to revise their manuscripts are expected to address all reviewer comments. A detailed response letter outlining the changes made in response to the feedback is required.

7. Transparency and Ethical Standards

AJQR is committed to maintaining transparency in its peer review process. We follow ethical guidelines to ensure that all manuscripts are reviewed fairly and that conflicts of interest are handled appropriately. Reviewers and editors are held to high ethical standards, including maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process and treating all submissions with respect and integrity.

8. Post-Publication Review and Corrections

After publication, AJQR remains open to post-publication feedback. If errors or ethical concerns are identified in a published article, the journal will initiate a correction or retraction process.

  • Post-Publication Discussions: Authors and readers can engage in constructive discussions of published articles through commentaries or letters to the editor.
  • Corrections and Retractions: If significant errors or ethical breaches are discovered post-publication, AJQR will issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s guidelines.