Peer Review

The ASEAN Entrepreneurship Journal (AEJ) applies a double-blind peer review process to manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening and are considered suitable for further consideration. The process supports the fair, impartial and consistent assessment of manuscripts and contributes to the quality, originality and integrity of the journal's published scholarly work.

AEJ's peer review process is conducted in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and relevant guidance.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their alignment with AEJ's aims and scope and their compliance with basic scholarly, methodological, ethical and submission requirements. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are considered for external double-blind peer review.

Under the double-blind peer review process:

• Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
• Reviewers do not receive the authors' identifying information through the anonymised manuscript.
• Editors and authorised editorial staff may access author information when necessary to manage the editorial process.

The peer review process is intended to ensure a fair, independent and consistent assessment of scholarly work. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's originality, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, relevance to entrepreneurship research and the reviewers' assessments, where applicable.

Editors, reviewers and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and related communications throughout the peer review and editorial decision-making process. Manuscripts and associated materials must not be disclosed to or discussed with unauthorised persons.

Manuscripts may be rejected at the initial editorial screening stage without external peer review if they fall outside AEJ's aims and scope or fail to meet the journal's basic scholarly, methodological, ethical or submission requirements.

Authors must submit two versions of the manuscript:

• An anonymised manuscript containing no author-identifying information for peer review.
• A complete manuscript containing all author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author details and relevant declarations for editorial use.

Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript text, acknowledgements, file properties and other materials intended for reviewers, where applicable. References to authors' previous work should be presented in the normal scholarly manner without unnecessary identifying statements.

AEJ recognises that complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where research has been publicly disseminated or its subject matter makes the authors identifiable. Reviewers must nevertheless assess manuscripts objectively and must not allow suspected author identities to influence their recommendations.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor to assess:

• Relevance to the journal's scope: Whether the manuscript contributes to entrepreneurship and new venture development, including relevant research in ASEAN and other emerging and developing economies.
• Originality and scholarly contribution: Whether the manuscript offers a meaningful contribution to entrepreneurship theory, research, policy, education or practice.
• Theoretical and conceptual quality: Whether the research problem, literature review and theoretical or conceptual foundation are appropriate.
• Methodological quality: Whether the research design, data, analytical procedures and interpretation are appropriate to the research questions.
• Clarity and presentation: Whether the manuscript communicates its arguments and findings clearly and meets the journal's scholarly writing standards.
• Ethical compliance: Whether the submission complies with the journal's requirements concerning research integrity, authorship, conflicts of interest and other applicable ethical matters.
• Submission requirements: Whether the manuscript and accompanying documents comply with AEJ's author guidelines.

All submissions are screened for similarity in accordance with AEJ's Plagiarism Policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Similarity reports are assessed contextually; a similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism.

The editor may reject a manuscript without external review if it fails to meet the journal's requirements. Manuscripts that pass the screening stage proceed to reviewer selection.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area or research methodology.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Relevant subject knowledge and research expertise.
• Academic qualifications or demonstrated scholarly experience.
• Research and publication experience relevant to the manuscript.
• Ability to provide an objective, constructive and evidence-based assessment.
• Independence from the authors and the research under consideration.
• Availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

AEJ may appoint reviewers from Malaysian or international universities, research institutions and other appropriate scholarly organisations.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals with whom they have a conflict of interest. Such suggestions are considered at the editor's discretion and do not guarantee appointment. The editor retains full responsibility for reviewer selection.

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment. Reviewers with conflicts that could compromise their impartiality must decline the invitation.

Where a reviewer declines, fails to respond or cannot complete the review, the editor may invite a replacement. Additional reviewers may be appointed when necessary to obtain an adequate and balanced assessment.

4. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance to AEJ's aims and scope, methodological quality, ethical compliance and the available peer review assessments.

Decisions must not be influenced by commercial, financial, institutional or personal interests.

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members or other individuals with a relevant conflict of interest must be handled by an independent editor who has no such conflict. The submitting editor must not participate in the reviewer selection, assessment or decision-making process for their own manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for editorial decisions, except where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest or another appropriate independent arrangement is required.

The publisher does not determine the scholarly outcome of individual submissions. Editorial decisions remain independent of financial considerations and other inappropriate external influence.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive and evidence-based evaluations.
• Assess manuscripts fairly, without discrimination or personal bias.
• Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript materials and editorial communications.
• Declare conflicts of interest before undertaking a review.
• Decline assignments where they lack the necessary expertise, cannot meet the deadline or cannot provide an impartial assessment.
• Evaluate the manuscript's originality, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodology, analysis, contribution and presentation.
• Identify relevant published work that the authors may have overlooked, where appropriate.
• Explain recommendations with clear and scholarly justification.
• Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification or other potential research or publication misconduct.
• Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional or commercial advantage.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor promptly of anticipated delays.

Reviewer reports and manuscript materials are confidential and must not be shared without editorial authorisation.

Reviewers must not delegate their responsibilities or disclose manuscript content to another person without the editor's prior permission. Any authorised assistance must comply with the journal's confidentiality and ethical requirements.

Failure to comply with these responsibilities may result in removal from AEJ's reviewer database or other appropriate action.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to the article type, research design and subject matter.

The principal criteria include:

1. Originality and contribution to knowledge: The extent to which the manuscript advances understanding of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial activity or new venture development.
2. Relevance to AEJ: The manuscript's alignment with the journal's aims and scope, including its relevance to entrepreneurship research and practice.
3. Theoretical or conceptual strength: The quality of the literature review, theoretical foundation, conceptual framework and identification of the research gap.
4. Methodological rigour: The appropriateness, transparency and validity of the research design, sampling, data collection and analytical procedures.
5. Analysis and interpretation: The accuracy, depth and relevance of the findings and their interpretation in relation to the research questions and existing literature.
6. Implications and conclusions: The extent to which conclusions are supported by evidence and implications for research, policy, education or practice are justified.
7. Ethical compliance and research integrity: The adequacy of relevant ethical declarations, data reporting, authorship disclosures and other applicable safeguards.
8. Clarity and scholarly presentation: The organisation, readability, referencing and overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should distinguish between fundamental weaknesses that undermine the validity or contribution of the research and issues that can reasonably be addressed through revision.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

Following the peer review process, the editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports and any relevant ethical or methodological concerns before making a decision.

Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript meets AEJ's requirements and is suitable for publication, subject to any necessary editorial or production corrections.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes to improve clarity, accuracy, presentation or other aspects that do not fundamentally undermine the research.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes to its theoretical foundation, literature review, methodology, analysis, interpretation or scholarly contribution before it can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical or scope requirements, or its weaknesses cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Authors receive the editorial decision and relevant anonymised reviewer comments to support their understanding of the decision and, where applicable, the revision process.

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final editorial decision. The editor must independently assess the quality and justification of the reviews.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, a reviewer report is inadequate or additional expertise is required, the editor may appoint an additional independent reviewer or make a reasoned editorial determination based on the available evidence.

Acceptance is not guaranteed by the submission of revisions or by a positive recommendation from an individual reviewer. The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for editorial decisions, subject to appropriate arrangements for conflicts of interest.

8. Revision Process

When AEJ requests a revision, authors must:

• Address reviewer and editor comments carefully and systematically.
• Provide a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.
• Clearly identify changes made to the revised manuscript.
• Explain and justify any recommendations that have not been adopted.
• Ensure that the revised manuscript remains anonymised during subsequent review.
• Submit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe or request an extension where necessary.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for reassessment or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the changes.

Major revisions may require another round of external review. The editor may reject a revised manuscript if substantial concerns remain unresolved or if the revision fails to address essential comments.

9. Integrity and Ethical Safeguards

AEJ safeguards the integrity of peer review through appropriate editorial and administrative procedures, including:

• Verification of reviewer suitability and, where practicable, identity through institutional profiles, publication records or other reliable sources.
• Conflict-of-interest screening for editors and reviewers.
• Confidential handling of manuscripts and editorial correspondence.
• Similarity screening and assessment of potential plagiarism or redundant publication.
• Monitoring for suspected reviewer identity manipulation, fabricated reviews or other interference with the review process.
• Appropriate handling of concerns about authorship, research ethics, data integrity and publication misconduct.
• Maintenance of editorial records supporting review and decision-making.

The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in peer review must comply with AEJ's confidentiality, data protection and publication ethics requirements. Reviewers must not upload confidential or unpublished manuscript content to public or third-party AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured. AI tools must not replace independent scholarly judgement, and reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their reports.

Suspected ethical issues are handled in accordance with AEJ's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and relevant COPE guidance. Depending on the circumstances, the journal may request explanations or supporting documentation, suspend review, reject the manuscript or take other appropriate action.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written explanation to the Editor-in-Chief.

An appeal should identify substantive grounds, such as a significant factual error, material misunderstanding of the manuscript, a demonstrable procedural irregularity or a conflict of interest that may have affected the decision. Disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

The Editor-in-Chief will assess the appeal and may refer it to an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision. Where appropriate, AEJ may seek an additional independent review.

The journal will communicate the outcome to the author. The decision following the appeal process is final within AEJ's editorial procedures.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial handling, conflicts of interest or suspected publication misconduct are considered separately where appropriate and handled in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.

11. Review Timeline

The typical peer review process takes approximately 6–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and the number of review and revision rounds required.

This period is an indicative target rather than a guaranteed timeframe. Delays may occur when reviewers decline invitations, additional reviewers are required or substantial revisions are necessary.

AEJ makes reasonable efforts to process submissions efficiently, monitor review progress and communicate material delays to authors where practicable. The journal seeks to maintain an appropriate balance between timely editorial decisions and the quality and integrity of peer review.

12. Confidentiality and Record Keeping

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers and editorial staff must not disclose unpublished manuscript content, reviewer identities or confidential editorial communications to unauthorised persons.

AEJ maintains appropriate records of submissions, reviewer invitations, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, revision histories, conflicts-of-interest declarations and relevant correspondence.

Access to these records is restricted to authorised personnel and managed in accordance with applicable confidentiality, data protection and record-retention requirements.

These records support editorial accountability, consistency and the journal's ability to demonstrate that its published peer review procedures are implemented in practice.

13. Policy Review and Implementation

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board are responsible for implementing and periodically reviewing this policy, with appropriate administrative support from the journal's publisher.

The policy applies to manuscripts submitted to AEJ from its effective date, subject to any applicable transitional arrangements. Revisions to the policy will be communicated through the journal's website.

AEJ is committed to maintaining a transparent, independent and rigorous double-blind peer review process that advances high-quality scholarship in entrepreneurship and related fields.