Review Process

The IJABR applies a double-blind review process. The author(s) and the reviewers of the submitted manuscript remain anonymous in order to guarantee the impartiality and fairness of the review.

  • First, the manuscript will be scanned for plagiarism.  If it is passed the check, the manuscript will be sent to the appropriate editor. After receiving it, the editor removes all author(s)’ personal contact information.
  • The editor assesses the manuscript’s suitability for the journal. The manuscript that is considered unsuited will be rejected, while the suitable one will be sent to two independent reviewers for further assessments. Based on the reviewers’ assessments and comments, the editor will make a final decision for the manuscript.

The submitted manuscript is initially reviewed by the editor to verify (1) no plagiarism exists, (2) the suitability of the manuscript. If it is passed the initial review, the manuscript is sent to two or three independent reviewers for further assessments. 

There are four types of recommendation reviewers can make within 14-28 days of reviewing:

  1. Revision required, means minor revision. It requires the authors to revise the manuscript as needed within a limited time
  2. Resubmit, means major revision. The authors can resubmit the improved manuscript as the new manuscript.
  3. Accepted, means the manuscript can be published directly.
  4. Rejected, means the manuscript is not suitable to be published in the IJABR.

Based on the reviewer’s recommendation, the editor makes the editorial decision that will be notified to authors by email and/or the IJABR system (Letter of Acceptance will be sent for the accepted manuscript). In the case that some major edits are needed, the editor/staff will work with the author to solve the problem through email.

Reviewer Guideline

Components and evaluation indicator Reviewers assessment are described in the following Table:

No

Component

Evaluation Indicator of reviewer

1

Title

Effectiveness, Specification and clarity

2

Abstract (in English)

Complete and describe the essence  of article

3

Keywords

Describing the essential concept of article

4

Introduction (background, Objective or scope, literature Review)

Up-to-date, originality, relevance of the Topic, compatibility of the important reason of the research objective

5

Methods

Accuracy, Specification, and clarity

6

Results   (Analysis and Synthetic)

Analysis acuteness

7

Discussion (Interpretation)

Up-to-date finding, relevance to the interrelated researches, and the scientific contribution effect of finding /idea to the development of science

8

Conclusion

Logical, valid, brief and clear

9

Suggestion

For practical action, development of new theory, and next/advanced research

10

Bibliography

Degree of up-to-date and the reference of primary book sources.

Rules: at least 90% of the journals or the interrelated scientific researches, above 2008 (year)