Review Policy-Guidelines

Editorial Review and Peer Review Policies

NASIJ strictly follows its policy and procedure of review through which it is ensured that:

  • the content of the article is relevant to the aim/scope of NASIJ;
  • the article has produced an innovative and quality research;
  • the format and layout of NASIJ are completely followed; and
  • the style, grammar and composition of language is correct. 

The NASIJ review policy involves editorial and peer review. Prior to being approved for publication, an article must pass through a double-blind peer review process. In this procedure, the identity of the author(s) is kept secret from peer reviewers and vice versa. The peer reviewers know the identity of authors only after the article is published.

  • Articles submitted to NASIJ are assigned to a section editor who is responsible for processing them according to the journal's policy and procedure. 
  • The section editor takes the opinion of the subject expert(s) among the editorial members for pre-peer-review revision and/or editing.
  • Based upon the editorial review, the section editor may accept the article without changes, with minor changes, with major changes, or reject it outrightly.
  • If accepted with minor/major changes, the suggestions and comments of the editorial team are shared with the corresponding author for revision/editing of the article accordingly.
  • After submission of the revised article, the section editor forwards the updated article for double-blind peer-review to at least one local and two foreign subject experts/specialists of an international repute.
  • The peer-reviewers specifically evaluate the article for the quality of the research on the basis of its relevancy, originality, and innovation.
  • The author(s) must incorporate all the required changes according to the reviewers' suggestions and comments.
  • In case of difference(s), if any, the author(s) may record clarification(s)/explanation(s) for each of the observations/comments and share with the section editor.
  • The revised draft of the article may be reviewed by the section editor or peer-reviewers to validate and verify the required changes based on the suggestions and comments.
  • An expert opinion from editorial advisors may be requested to resolve the differences or conflicting reports, if any.
  • The final decision about publishing or rejecting the revised/updated article is taken by the Chief Editor.

Reviewers Guidelines

The peer-reviewers of NASIJ shall evaluate an article based on the following 10 principles and standards, which are a minimum requirement for accepting a manuscript. 

  1. The title is brief, clear and appropriate to the content/purpose of article. (Example: Active verbs are used instead of complex noun-based phrases. It is around 10 to 12 words long and summarises the main idea or ideas of the study.)
  2. The abstract accurately describes content of the paper. (Example: It discusses a compact view of the research problem, purpose of study, research design, key findings, and is 180-200 words long.)
  3. The Keywords are enough and appropriate. (Example: It does not use words or phrases from the title and supplement the title's contents. These are descriptive, represents key concepts, nouns, and are 8-10 words.)
  4. The Introduction give an overview from a general subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. (Example: It describes the purpose, scope, context, significance, background, hypothesis(es), question(s), brief methodology, outcome(s), an outline of remaining structure/organisation of the article.)
  5. The Literature Review gives an overview of the sources explored and demonstrates how the study fits within the larger field of the study. (Example: It gives a description, summary, and critical evaluation of sources explored in relation to the research problem(s) being investigated.)
  6. Research Methodology is adequately described. (Example: It describes the actions taken to investigate the research problem and the rationale for applying the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyse the information applied to understanding the problem.)
  7. Results are clearly presented. (Example: It reports the findings of the study based upon the methodology(ies) being applied and in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation if data is generated from the author’s own research.)
  8. The discussion is clear, and the findings are accurately analysed. (Example: It interprets and describes the significance of findings in light of what was already known about the research problem. It explains new understandings or insights that have emerged based on studying the problem. It is connected to the introduction through research questions or hypothesis(es) and the literature review.)
  9. Conclusion is supported by findings of the results. (Example: It helps the readers to understand why the research should matter to them. It gives a synthesis of key points and (if applicable) recommends new areas for future research.)
  10. English Language and Style meet the standard. (Example: It is clear, unambiguous, and objective, i.e., it gives reasons and evidence. It uses active voice, and a minimum level of passive voice is used where required. It mostly uses ordinary language rather than complicated expressions and technical terminologies.)


[Last updated: June 02, 2024]