Journal Home  Current Edition  Submission Information  Peer Review  Editorial Board  Create Special Editions  E-Mail Us

Peer Review Information

The International Indigenous Journal of Entrepreneurship, Advancement, Strategy and Education peer reviews all the material it receives. More than half of the submissions are rejected after internal editorial review in house. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality, serious flaws, the absence of a message that is important to the readers of the journal, or a temporary abundance of papers on one specific issue. A decision concerning immediate rejection is taken very quickly, usually within 7 days. The remaining articles are sent to one of more external reviewers selected from our Associate Editor/Peer Review panels of academic experts around the world. Reviewers advise the Editors who are finally and exclusively responsible for a decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Reasons for rejection will be indicated to the corresponding author. We aim at sending papers to reviewers within 7 days of receipt, and to complete the review process within 2 months.

The Editors do not enter into correspondence about papers rejected as being unsuitable for publication, and the Editors' decision in these matters is final. The Editors retain the right to determine style and, if necessary, to shorten material.

The Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainabilit now operates an optional system of open peer review. This means that reviewers can sign their reports if they wish. Open peer review does not mean that authors should contact reviewers directly to discuss their reports; it is intended as a courtesy to authors, in the spirit of transparency of process. All author's queries should still be directed through the editorial office.

Open Peer Review

Peer review is an essential tool to maintain the academic and practical relevance of published material. There is the general concern that, especially in times where academic careers, government-based funding or other values are related to publication quantities, the quality of the work might deteriorate. We operate a double-blind review process: Neither the reviewers nor the authors know each other, and thus we attempt to reduce bias in the review process. Peer review is not without its critics. Aside from being costly to administer, peer review is slow, burdens academic time, is subjective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting technical defects, and not useful for the detection of fraud.

Research has not found that open peer review generates better (or worse) reviews, but we are introducing Open Peer Review as a trial, largely for reasons of transparency and credibility of the process, feeding off what we believe are sound principles in sustainability.

Academia is progressively moving away from anonymity and into a phase of strategic alliances, co-opetition and joint use of scarce funding resources. It appears to us that anonymity as to authors might be helpful to protect the reviewer from a claim of bias, but that withholding the identity of the reviewer to the author, is anachronistic.

The primary argument against closed peer review is that any comments by a reviewer should be matched, by the author, with the reviewer's professional experience and credibility. Likely, a reviewer who agrees to lift the veil of anonymity, will be more conscientious with comments and critique, aiding the formation of an academically valuable dialogue. Editors have seen curt, abrasive, devastating reviews, and it is likely that this reviewer would not have written in that way if the name were known. Openness also links accountability with credit. One important defect of closed review is that reviewers don't receive academic credit. We believe that openness and transparency of the process might eliminate some of the worst abuses of peer review. This is a trial. It is voluntary for reviewers to be 'open', and there might be good reasons why reviewers would wish to remain anonymous, i.e. fearing excessive direct communication with argumentative authors or being reluctant to critique the work of someone who might possibly have an influence over the reviewer's future career. Any reviewer can decline to review a certain paper, and any reviewer can decline to disclose his/her identity. Anyone can decline to review a particular paper.

Of course, we will also, as a matter of principle and on a voluntary basis, disclose the names of all editorial staff in-house, who have contributed to the review and processing of any submission.

We hope that peer review will develop into an academic discussion forum, creating value, rather than being a one-line judgment on the merits of a submission. We believe reviewers should receive academic credit for their reviews, i.e. by being named at the end of a published article, and we will gladly record the impressions and comments of our readers, authors and reviewers to decide on a future refinement of our approach.

We thank you for your patience to read this background on our peer review policy.


 Journal Home  Current Edition  Submission Information  Peer Review  Editorial Board  Create Special Editions  E-Mail Us

The International Indigenous Journal of Entrepreneurship, Advancement, Strategy and Education is published by Te Wananga o Aotearoa, Te Awamutu, New Zealand; Tama Potaka, Publisher

Te Wananga logo

go top of the page