Review Policy 

The journal (JAFEB) has adopted a double-blind peer review policy, where the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Please remove all identifying features from the main document, ensuring that Author's identity is not revealed. However, this does not preclude Authors from citing their works. However, Authors must cite their works in a manner that does not make explicit their identity.
Acceptable: "Lee (2013) has indicated that . . ."
Acceptable: "Some scholars have indicated that . . . (e.g., Lee, 2013; Youn &Lee, 2018)"

The journal (JAFEB) operates a double-blind peer review process. The Editor-in-Chief will initially assess all contributions for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the paper's scientific quality. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final. 

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

The journal (JAFEB) uses a double-blind peer review process, which means the authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers and vice versa.  To facilitate this, please include the following separately:
Title page (with author details): This should include the title, author's names, affiliations, acknowledgments, any Declaration of Interest statement, and a complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address.
Main document (without author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables, and acknowledgments) should not include any identifying information, such as the author's names or affiliations. 
Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model.
Bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. The reviewers of JAFEB exemplify best practices in a given review situation. 

THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

1. Submission of Paper 
Authors are requested to submit their papers electronically to the ACOMS Peer Review System of the Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business (JAFEB). Please be noted that even if your paper has passed the JAFEB Peer Review Process via the ACOMS Peer Review System (also called “ACOMS”). 
Please note that the journal's Editorial Board will be very selective, accepting only articles based on scholarly merit, research significance, research integrity, and complete compliance with the journal style guidelines (APA).  The JAFEB Editorial Board respects and promotes all authors and contributors based on research ability and experience without considering race, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, financial means, or any of the narrow frames of reference. 

2. Editorial Office Assessment
The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to ensure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the article is not assessed at this point.

3. Invitation to Reviewers
The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly, this is 3, but there is some variation between journals.

COPE ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEWERS

JAFEB provides membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as an option for all of its journal editors. COPE has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which Editors and their editorial boards can refer to for guidance. Read the COPE guidelines below or visit their website to download the PDF. Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the academic community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer review process but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Journals have a responsibility to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers must conduct checks in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers facilitates consistent, fair, and timely reviews. COPE has heard cases from its members related to peer review issues and, in part, bases these guidelines on the collective experience and wisdom of the COPE Forum participants. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers. Peer review, for these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication. Reviews of materials such as preprints, grants, books, conference proceeding submissions, registered reports (preregistered protocols), or data will have a similar underlying ethical framework. Still, the process will vary depending on the source material and the type of review requested. The model of peer review will also influence elements of the process. 

FINAL CHECK-LIST BEFORE SUBMISSION

Please ensure that:

• The manuscript has been 'spell checked' and 'grammar checked.'
• Note that submitted manuscripts will not go through language-focused copy editing with the journal before or after acceptance; language-focused copy editing is the authors' responsibility before submission.
• Please prepare the manuscript for blind review; whenever possible, please use author names and references for self-citations but make sure that you use the third person to discuss the work (see “Review Policy” above)
• All references mentioned in the Reference List are cited in the text, and vice versa.
• Permission has been obtained for the use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Internet)
• A competing interests statement is provided, even if the authors have no competing interests to declare
• Journal policies detailed in this guide have been reviewed.

Submission Declaration: 
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere including electronically in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the copyright holder. When authors prepare multiple submissions using the same dataset or partially overlapping variables in two or more articles, this must be declared upfront in the letter to the editor. Masked reference(s) to previous studies based on the same dataset must be included in the manuscript so the reader can understand the novelty of the new research about the earlier articles. Please consult the APA manual on piecemeal publications. In cases where the manuscript is part of a larger project (e.g., a prospective longitudinal study, an intervention study with numerous arms, etc.) in which other partly overlapping publications already exist, or are planned in parallel to the submitted manuscript, need to be declared in the accompanying letter to the Editor-in-Chief. Authors are asked to be upfront declaring such manuscripts. A manuscript may be returned if the degree of overlap is too large. 

Similarity Check: 
JAFEB is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and taking all possible measures against publication malpractices. All authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. The Similarity Check process can be broadly employed using CrossCheck software, although these steps vary slightly between KODISA Journals. 

SUBMISSION-REVIEW-ACCEPTANCE-PRODUCTION PROCESS

Step 1: Desk Editor’s decision 
For example, check the Submission Consent Form, APC agreement, APA style format, Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice, and CrossCheck screening: the iThenticate software to detect overlapping and similar text instances in submitted manuscripts. Authors can be assured that JAFEB is committed to actively combating plagiarism and publishing original research. 
[Editorial Board and Selection Policy: Please note that the Editorial Board of the JAFEB will be very selective, accepting only the articles based on scholarly merit, research significance, research integrity, and compliance with the journal style guidelines (APA). JAFEB Editorial Board respect and promote all authors and contributors based on research ability and experience without considering race, citizenship, or any of the narrow frames of reference.] 

Step 2: External Reviewers Board’s decision 
Suppose the article successfully passes the requirements of submission and the first round of screening and Plagiarism checking. In that case, the paper goes to external reviews, which will take another 2 to 8 weeks.
[Important: After the external reviews are completed, an APC invoice will be followed if the paper gets accepted in favor of publication in the journal. Based on an invoice, the author should make a payment for APC. Before the paper finally gets accepted, any payment does not count as any credit toward its acceptance for publication.] 

Step 3: Editorial Editor’s decision 
For example, double-check citations in text and references, tables and figures, heading and subheadings, etc. Suppose the article finally gets accepted for publication, and the author has paid APC for their publication in the journal. In that case, the paper goes to Copy Editor and Typesetter, which will take another 2 to 4 weeks from then. 

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW PROCESS 

Submission for the Double-Blind Peer Review: 
JAFEB uses a double-blind peer review process, which means the authors' identities are concealed from reviewers and vice versa. To facilitate this, please include the following separately:
Title page (with author details): This should include the title, author's names, affiliations, acknowledgments, any Declaration of Interest statement, and a complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address.
Main document (without author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables, and acknowledgments) should not include any identifying information, such as the author's names or affiliations.

Submission to ACOMS Peer Review System: 
Thank you for submitting your research article to the ACOMS Peer Review System of the Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business (JAFEB). Please be noted that even if your paper has passed the JAFEB Peer Review Process via the ACOMS Peer Review System (also called “ACOMS”).