Regulations for Examination

Established Jan. 1, 2022 

1. Purpose

1.1. This regulation aims to stipulate general provisions regarding the review of papers submitted to the journal " Asian Qualitative Inquiry Journal(AQIJ)" by the Asian Qualitative Inquiry Association.

2. Subject to review

2.1. The papers subject to review are limited to those submitted by the deadline for manuscript submission for each issue of AQIJ

3. Review process and decisions

3.1. Reviewers are selected from experts in the relevant field, either professors specializing in the subject area or holders of doctoral degrees..

3.2. The review process commences upon receipt of the manuscript, and reviewers are required to submit their review results to the editorial office within 15 days from the date of their appointment."

3.3. The review of submitted papers follows the procedures and regulations outlined below.

3.3.1. The Editor-in-Chief selects papers for initial review by assessing whether the content and format of the submitted manuscripts align with the objectives of the association and the manuscript preparation guidelines.

3.3.2. The Editorial Board appoints three reviewers with expertise in the relevant field to conduct the first round of review of the submitted papers.

3.3.3. Each reviewer evaluates the submitted paper using the evaluation form provided by the association, and assigns one of the following ratings: 'Accept', 'Accept with revisions', 'Revisions required, resubmit for review', or 'Reject'.

- Accept: This rating is given when only minor revisions, such as correcting typos or simple sentence restructuring, are required. After the author makes the revisions, the paper will be accepted for publication.

- Accept with revisions: In this case, the author is requested by the reviewers to make revisions to the manuscript. After the author makes the revisions, the editorial board evaluates the appropriateness of the revised content without further review by the original reviewers. If deemed appropriate, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

- Revisions required, resubmit for review: This rating indicates that the manuscript needs significant revisions based on the reviewers' feedback. After the author revises the manuscript according to the reviewers' suggestions, it will be resubmitted for another round of review, and the final decision regarding publication will be made after the revised manuscript is reevaluated by the reviewers.

 - Reject: This rating is given when the quality of the paper is deemed very low or when there are too many revisions needed, making it difficult to publish in the current issue.

3.3.4. The editorial board determines the review results according to the criteria set forth and notifies the author of the decision.

3.3.5. After receiving the decision for publication or reevaluation following the confirmation of revisions based on the first round of review, the author submits the revised manuscript, along with a table comparing the revisions, within the specified deadline to the editorial board.

3.3.6. In the case of reevaluation, the editorial board commissions a second review of the revised manuscript from the same reviewer. The second reviewer comprehensively evaluates the manuscript, considering the incorporation of suggested revisions and the overall content, and assigns one of the following ratings: 'Accept' (including 'Accept' and 'Accept with revisions') or 'Reject'. The final decision is made by the editorial board based on the criteria established, and the author is notified of the outcome.

4. Review criteria

4.1. "Reviewers must submit their review results within the designated period, adhering to the following criteria:"

4.1.1. Originality and Academic Contribution of the Paper: Is the research topic or content original and does it contribute significantly to the academic field?

4.1.2. Relevance to Previous Research: Does the researcher demonstrate sufficient understanding of the relevant previous research?

4.1.3. Appropriateness of Qualitative Research Methods: Is the design or process of qualitative research methodologically sound? Was the research conducted ethically?"

4.1.4. Validity of Results and Conclusions: Is the logical progression of the paper valid, and are the results and conclusions drawn from it valid?

4.1.5. Suitability of Paper Format: Does the paper adhere to submission guidelines in terms of format, and is the format of citations and references appropriate?

5. Appeal Process

5.1. The author may submit an appeal in writing regarding the final decision of the editorial board.

5.2. The editorial board may review the author's appeal and, if necessary, appoint new reviewers to conduct a reevaluation.