A) AIMS AND SCOPE
The Asian Journal of International Affairs (AJIA), is a double-blind peer reviewed open access journal published by Kathmandu School of Law (KSL), Nepal. Our aim is to create space for intellectual discourse, debate, and dialogue with both inductive and deductive analysis of International Relations and express Nepal’s voice in regional and global arena through intensive research, debate, dialogue, discourse, publication, and dissemination of new knowledge. In addition, it focuses on oriental philosophical approaches at the core of the research and western philosophical approaches in its periphery. Thus, the Journal will connect the World's academics, professors, researchers, think tanks, scholars, policymakers in this field, diplomats, and even promising students in International Relations. The scope of AJIA is not limited to experts in Asian affairs but also becoming relevant to readers with practical interest in the region.
AJIA encourages submission with special focus on International Relations, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Security, Strategic Studies, International Migration, International Organizations, Regional Organization, Regionalism and Multilateralism, and Emerging Trends in International Relations. Submissions are aimed to examine political, social, and economic development at bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral, avenue focusing in countries, organizations, and regions. Therefore, AJIA warmly welcomes research-based articles, policy reviews, reports, book reviews, etc. from interested national and international researchers.
B) REVIEW PROCESS
i) Initial screening
Editor first examines at the cover page of the submitted manuscript. The cover page shall include title of the article, research statement, problem and questions, objectives, research gap, methods, and crux of the conclusion. Editor can discard the submitted manuscript based on the information provided through the cover page. For others, they go through the abstract and skim any section of the manuscript to determine whether it passes their quality threshold. The editorial board inspects the list of references and the article is sent for plagiarism test.
ii) Peer review
The manuscript passing the initial screening would be sent for peer review. There are normally three common types of peer review for the journal publication (for general reference):
- Single-blind: In this type of review process, the names of reviewers are not revealed to authors but the author is known to the reviewers.
- Double-blind: In this type of review, the names of reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other.
- Open peer review: In this type of review, the names of authors and reviewers are revealed to each other.
Manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by a minimum of two readers through a double-blind process. It will be evaluated by the editor in consultation with subject experts without disclosing the authors’ identity. The manuscript will be evaluated based on the aim and scope of the journal, originality of content, its argument, structure and relevancy.
Generally, a minimum of two peer reviewers (this could be flexible) are chosen for the review process. Peer reviewers are ideally experts in their field who are selected from the roster of experts from AJIA. The peer review is completed after reviewers' detailed report with comments on the manuscript and respective recommendation in a standard evaluation form of AJIA. Typically, this will take almost 3 to 4 weeks or one month.
C) FINAL DECISION
The Editorial Board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions that are made:
- Accept without any changes
- Accept with minor revisions
- Accept after major revisions
- Revise and resubmit
- Reject the paper
D) DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM
Dispute resolution in most journals focuses on preventing disputes rather than some universal standard for resolving them. Disputes in journals mostly comprise authorship dispute, misconduct, plagiarism, different evaluation of peer reviewers on the same journal articles, etc. The popular methods used for resolving such disputes are internal discussion, administrative involvement, seeking help from research compliance or research integrity offices for misconduct, resolving disputes by journal editors themselves, or forming an institutional committee for mediation or arbitration among the parties involved. Some Journals even keep research ethics consultants for mediation or sign a contract with contributors to abide with the decision of the mediator after publication.
AJIA resolves any disputes arising out of the publication of the journal in following two ways:
- Internal Mechanism: Under this, individual recommendations by the peer reviewers and dispute regarding the authorship will be resolved by forming an Internal Committee for Dispute Settlement (ICDS). The committee will comprise each member from the advisory board, editorial board, KSL professors, and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal.
- External Mechanism: If the ICDS under the internal mechanism fails to settle any dispute, the External Committee for Dispute Settlement (ECDS) will be constituted on the recommendation of ICDS with the participation of four national-level subjects matter experts. The External Committee for Dispute Settlement (ECDS) will be independent and authorized to settle disputes.
To acquire the privilege of authorship, each individual should contribute in the conceptualization, design, execution, and/or interpretation of the research , as well as on drafting, substantively reviewing or revising the research article, and a willingness to assure responsibility of the research.
F) AUTHORSHIP DISPUTE
Each paper contributor should have a written authorship agreement before the article is written, which should reduce the chances of disputes arising at a later stage. However, we accept that many people are reluctant to be pinned down in this way, and that it will not always be possible to take such a sensible approach in real life.
Disagreements about authorship can be classified into two types: those that do not contravene guidelines (disputes) and those that do (misconduct).
These are largely questions of interpretation, such as whether someone’s contribution was ‘substantial’ or not. In such cases, the negotiation is done among authors and the Editors.
Whenever there is a proposal of creating an authorship list that is unethical, the Editors could well decline to publish if found out.