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.

At first, the submitted manuscript is initially reviewed by the editor to verify (1) no plagiarism exists, (2) the suitability of the manuscript (topic and template). The manuscript that is considered unsuited will be rejected, while the suitable one (without any author(s)' personal contact information) will be sent to two independent reviewers for further assessments. Based on the reviewers’ assessments and comments, the Editor in Chief will make a final decision for the manuscript.

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 author(s) by the IJABR system (Letter of Acceptance will be sent for the accepted manuscript). Next, the author(s) must submit the Copyright Transfer Agreement by the IJABR system. 

Reviewer Guideline

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

 No

         Component

       Evaluation Indicator of   

                 reviewer(s)

  1

Title

Effectiveness, Specification and clarity

  2

Abstract (in English)

Complete and describe the essence of the article

  3

Keywords

Describing the essential concept of an article

  4

Introduction (background, Objective or scope, literature review)

Up-to-date, originality, the relevance of the Topic, compatibility of the important reason for 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)