PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer Review Process
Applied Information System and Management (AISM) applies a structured peer review process to ensure that every submitted manuscript is evaluated based on relevance to the journal's focus and scope, methodological quality, originality, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the development of Information Systems and Information Systems Management.
Review Model
Double-blind peer review
Reviewers
At least two reviewers
Decision Timeline
Around two months
Review Timeline
1
Initial Editorial Review
The Editorial Board first reviews the submitted manuscript to ensure its relevance to the journal's focus and scope, basic academic quality, originality, and compliance with the publication ethics of AISM.
2
Similarity and Ethical Screening
The manuscript is checked for similarity, possible plagiarism, publication ethics issues, and basic authorship compliance. Manuscripts that do not meet ethical standards may be returned to the authors or rejected before external review.
3
Format Compliance Check
The editorial team checks whether the manuscript follows the AISM template, author guidelines, article structure, citation style, reference format, table and figure requirements, and language standards.
4
Double-Blind Peer Review
AISM applies a double-blind peer review process. The identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential to reduce potential bias related to gender, ethnicity, nationality, institution, seniority, or previous academic reputation.
5
Multiple Reviewers
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers who have relevant expertise in the topic, method, or disciplinary area of the submitted article.
6
Quality Assessment
Reviewers assess the quality of the manuscript, including the title, abstract, introduction, related work, method, results, discussion, conclusion, references, novelty, scientific contribution, clarity of argument, and ethical compliance.
7
Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers provide comments, suggestions, and recommendations regarding whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, resubmitted, or rejected. Reviewer comments are used to help authors improve the quality of their manuscript.
8
Editorial Decision
The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance is made by the Editorial Board based on the reviewers' critical comments, the editor's assessment, the author's revisions, and the manuscript's compliance with AISM publication standards.
9
Review Timeline
The review decision is expected to be announced to the authors within around two months. However, the duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the quality of the submitted manuscript, the complexity of the revision, and the editorial workflow.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Accepted Minor Revision Major Revision Resubmit for Review Rejected
Note: Authors are expected to respond carefully to all reviewer and editor comments. Revised manuscripts should be submitted with clear improvements and, when requested, a response document explaining how each comment has been addressed.
