Peer Review Process

1. Introduction

Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethically responsible peer-review process as a fundamental component of scholarly publishing.

Peer review is an essential mechanism for assessing the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, clarity, methodological or analytical soundness, and ethical acceptability of manuscripts submitted to MAJIS. It also provides authors with constructive scholarly feedback that may improve the quality of their work.

MAJIS employs a double-anonymous peer-review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process. For manuscripts that proceed to external review, MAJIS aims to obtain at least two independent external reviews where available. The handling editor may request additional reviews when the existing reports are insufficient, contradictory, inconclusive, or otherwise require further expert assessment.

The journal recognises that a credible peer-review system depends on the responsible conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff. Accordingly, all participants are expected to comply with the principles of confidentiality, objectivity, independence, integrity, respect, and timely communication.

This policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practice on Peer Review Processes and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE states that peer-review processes should be transparently described and well managed, and that journals should provide appropriate guidance and training for editors and reviewers, particularly concerning review models, conflicts of interest, appeals, and disputes.

This policy does not constitute or imply COPE approval, certification, or endorsement of MAJIS.

2. Description

2.1 Peer Review

Peer review is the critical evaluation of a manuscript by qualified scholars who are independent of the journal's editorial staff and, to the extent practicable, independent of the authors.

The principal purposes of peer review at MAJIS are to:

  • assess the scholarly quality of the manuscript;

  • evaluate originality and significance;

  • assess the validity and coherence of the argument;

  • evaluate the adequacy of methods or analytical approaches;

  • identify substantial weaknesses or omissions;

  • identify ethical or integrity concerns;

  • provide constructive recommendations for improvement; and

  • assist editors in making informed editorial decisions.

Peer reviewers provide expert advice; they do not themselves make the final publication decision.

2.2 Double-Anonymous Peer Review

MAJIS uses a double-anonymous peer-review model.

Under this model:

  • reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors;

  • authors are not informed of the identities of reviewers;

  • reviewer reports are communicated to authors without identifying information;

  • editors take reasonable measures to preserve anonymity; and

  • authors and reviewers are expected not to deliberately disclose or infer identities through the review process.

The purpose of double-anonymous review is to reduce potential bias associated with factors such as institutional affiliation, professional reputation, nationality, gender, or personal relationships and to encourage assessment based primarily on the scholarly content of the manuscript.

2.3 External Review

MAJIS seeks independent external reviewers for manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment.

External reviewers should have relevant expertise and should not be part of the manuscript's authorship or directly responsible for the editorial decision.

MAJIS normally seeks at least two independent external reviews where available.

2.4 Editorial Assessment

Before external peer review, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment.

The assessment may consider:

  • alignment with the journal's aims and scope;

  • compliance with submission requirements;

  • basic scholarly quality;

  • originality;

  • completeness;

  • ethical requirements;

  • plagiarism or text-overlap concerns;

  • authorship and disclosure requirements; and

  • suitability for external review.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it is clearly outside the journal's scope, fails to satisfy essential submission requirements, or presents substantial problems that make external review inappropriate.

A desk rejection is an editorial decision and does not necessarily imply that the manuscript is of no scholarly value.

2.5 Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their:

  • subject expertise;

  • familiarity with the relevant scholarly literature;

  • ability to provide an independent assessment;

  • availability;

  • publication or research experience where relevant; and

  • absence of significant conflicts of interest.

The handling editor retains responsibility for the final selection of reviewers.

2.6 Reviewer Recommendations Suggested by Authors

Where the submission system permits authors to suggest reviewers, such suggestions may be considered by the handling editor.

Author-suggested reviewers are not automatically selected.

The editor should independently assess:

  • the reviewer's qualifications;

  • relevant expertise;

  • institutional affiliation;

  • publication record where appropriate;

  • independence;

  • possible conflicts of interest; and

  • whether the suggested reviewer is genuinely suitable.

The journal may reject or disregard a suggested reviewer where there is reason to question independence, suitability, or integrity.

Authors must not recommend individuals with whom they have a relationship that could reasonably compromise the independence of the review.

2.7 Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • maintain confidentiality;

  • provide objective and evidence-based assessments;

  • identify relevant strengths and weaknesses;

  • provide constructive comments;

  • declare conflicts of interest;

  • accept assignments only when they possess sufficient expertise;

  • complete reviews within the agreed timeframe;

  • identify suspected ethical or publication-integrity concerns; and

  • refrain from using unpublished information for personal or third-party advantage.

These principles are consistent with COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

2.8 Editorial Responsibility

Editors are responsible for:

  • selecting appropriate reviewers;

  • managing confidentiality;

  • assessing reviewer reports;

  • resolving conflicting recommendations;

  • requesting additional reviews when necessary;

  • managing conflicts of interest;

  • making independent editorial decisions; and

  • communicating decisions to authors.

Editors must not simply delegate the publication decision to reviewers.

2.9 Peer-Review Timelines

MAJIS establishes the following target timelines:

  • Initial editorial/desk check: no more than 7 days;

  • External peer review: approximately 21–35 days;

  • First editorial decision: no more than 45 days where circumstances permit;

  • Average submission-to-publication period: approximately 10 weeks.

These are operational targets rather than absolute guarantees. Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, ethical investigations, technical issues, and other circumstances.

3. Policy

3.1 Mandatory Peer Review

All manuscript types that require scholarly external assessment must undergo the peer-review process specified by MAJIS before acceptance.

The journal may apply a different editorial assessment procedure to submissions such as:

  • editorials;

  • letters;

  • announcements;

  • book reviews;

  • invited commentaries; or

  • other non-research content.

Where a different assessment model applies, the journal should communicate this clearly to authors.

3.2 Double-Anonymous Review as the Standard Model

MAJIS uses double-anonymous peer review as its standard model for manuscripts requiring external peer review.

The identities of authors and reviewers must be protected throughout the process to the extent technically and practically possible.

3.3 Number of Reviewers

MAJIS aims to obtain at least two independent external reviews for manuscripts undergoing full peer review.

The editor may obtain:

  • additional reviews;

  • a third review;

  • specialist advice; or

  • another independent assessment

when necessary.

Additional review may be appropriate when:

  • reviewer reports substantially conflict;

  • one review is insufficiently detailed;

  • an important methodological or disciplinary issue requires specialist expertise;

  • an ethical concern arises;

  • a reviewer withdraws;

  • a reviewer fails to complete the assignment; or

  • the editor requires further evidence before making a decision.

3.4 Reviewer Independence

Reviewers must be sufficiently independent of the authors and the research.

A reviewer should normally decline an assignment if there is a significant conflict, including:

  • close personal relationships with an author;

  • recent collaboration;

  • direct supervisory relationships;

  • substantial institutional conflicts;

  • direct financial interests;

  • competitive interests that could affect impartiality;

  • involvement in the same unpublished research;

  • personal disputes; or

  • other circumstances that could reasonably compromise objective assessment.

3.5 Reviewer Expertise

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when they possess sufficient expertise to provide a meaningful assessment.

A reviewer may decline an assignment if:

  • the topic falls outside their expertise;

  • they cannot complete the review adequately;

  • they cannot meet the deadline; or

  • a conflict of interest exists.

COPE specifically recommends that reviewers accept assignments only where they have the subject expertise necessary to conduct a proper assessment and can do so in a timely manner.

3.6 Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to MAJIS are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with unauthorised persons;

  • distribute the manuscript;

  • quote unpublished material outside the review;

  • use unpublished ideas or findings for personal advantage;

  • discuss the manuscript publicly;

  • upload confidential manuscript material to unauthorised external tools; or

  • disclose their reviewer status to the authors.

Confidentiality continues after completion of the review.

3.7 Reviewer Objectivity

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts on scholarly grounds.

Reviews should not be influenced by:

  • author nationality;

  • gender;

  • ethnicity;

  • religion;

  • institutional affiliation;

  • academic rank;

  • personal reputation;

  • political views;

  • personal relationships; or

  • other irrelevant characteristics.

Reviewers should distinguish between substantive scholarly weaknesses and legitimate differences in theoretical, methodological, or interpretive perspective.

3.8 Constructive Peer Review

Reviewer comments should be:

  • specific;

  • evidence-based;

  • professional;

  • respectful;

  • relevant;

  • actionable where possible; and

  • directed toward improving the manuscript.

Personal attacks, insulting language, discriminatory remarks, defamatory statements, or comments unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript are inappropriate.

3.9 Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.

Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Detailed requirements are governed by MAJIS's Conflicts of Interest Policy.

3.10 Reviewer Use of Generative AI

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or other protected editorial materials to external generative-AI systems unless explicitly authorised by the journal and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the substance of their review.

MAJIS's AI Usage Policy provides further requirements concerning the use of AI in peer review.

3.11 No Unauthorised Delegation of Review

Reviewers may not transfer a manuscript to another person for review without prior permission from the handling editor.

If a reviewer believes that another scholar would be better qualified to review the manuscript, the reviewer should contact the editor and disclose the proposed arrangement.

Any approved co-review arrangement must preserve confidentiality and accountability.

3.12 Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • acceptance;

  • minor revision;

  • major revision;

  • rejection; or

  • another recommendation available through the review system.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final decision rests with the responsible editor.

3.13 Editorial Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

Editors must evaluate reviewer reports critically rather than mechanically.

Editors may:

  • accept reviewer recommendations;

  • seek clarification;

  • request an additional review;

  • disregard inappropriate comments;

  • reconcile conflicting recommendations; or

  • make a decision that differs from an individual reviewer's recommendation.

Where a review contains inappropriate, discriminatory, defamatory, irrelevant, or otherwise unacceptable material, the editor may remove or edit such material in accordance with this policy.

3.14 Editing of Review Reports

MAJIS may edit reviewer reports for:

  • inappropriate tone;

  • confidentiality concerns;

  • personal or identifying information;

  • defamatory or offensive language;

  • policy violations; or

  • other editorial reasons.

The editorial office should not materially alter the scholarly meaning of a review.

Where a substantial editorial change is made, the reviewer should be informed where appropriate.

MAJIS's current Publication Ethics policy expressly permits the editorial office to edit reviews for tone, confidentiality, or policy compliance without changing their meaning and to notify reviewers of substantial edits while retaining the originals.

3.15 Conflicting Reviews

Conflicting reviewer reports do not automatically require rejection or acceptance.

The handling editor should consider:

  • the substance of each review;

  • the reviewers' relevant expertise;

  • the seriousness of identified concerns;

  • whether concerns can be addressed through revision;

  • whether methodological or ethical issues remain unresolved; and

  • whether an additional independent review is necessary.

3.16 Additional Review

An editor may request additional review when:

  • the two reports reach materially different conclusions;

  • a reviewer raises a serious ethical concern;

  • the manuscript requires specialised expertise;

  • the reviewer reports are inadequate;

  • a reviewer withdraws;

  • a reviewer appears to have misunderstood the manuscript; or

  • additional evidence is needed for a fair decision.

3.17 Editorial Decision

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision;

  • Reject and Resubmit, where applicable; or

  • Reject.

The precise decision terminology used in the OJS workflow may vary.

The decision should be supported by the manuscript's scholarly merits, reviewer assessments, editorial judgment, and applicable ethical requirements.

3.18 Desk Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected before external peer review where, for example:

  • it falls outside the journal's scope;

  • it fails to meet essential submission requirements;

  • it contains substantial integrity concerns;

  • it is manifestly unsuitable for publication;

  • it does not provide sufficient scholarly substance;

  • it substantially duplicates previously published work; or

  • it cannot reasonably be evaluated through the journal's peer-review process.

Desk rejection should be communicated professionally and, where appropriate, with a concise explanation.

3.19 Revision

When revision is requested, authors should:

  • address the reviewers' comments carefully;

  • explain how each substantive concern was addressed;

  • provide a point-by-point response;

  • identify changes made in the manuscript; and

  • explain respectfully why a particular suggestion was not adopted where applicable.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or reassessed by the editor.

3.20 Reviewer Re-Evaluation

Where substantial revision is required, the editor may send the revised manuscript back to one or more original reviewers.

The purpose is to determine whether the major concerns identified during the first review have been adequately addressed.

The editor retains responsibility for the final decision.

3.21 Reviewer Anonymity

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors under the double-anonymous review model.

Reviewers should avoid placing identifying information in:

  • review comments;

  • uploaded files;

  • document metadata;

  • supplementary files; or

  • direct correspondence with authors.

The journal's editorial system should be configured to protect reviewer identity.

3.22 Author Anonymity

Authors must take reasonable steps to anonymise manuscripts submitted for double-anonymous review.

Authors should remove:

  • names;

  • affiliations;

  • acknowledgements that reveal identity;

  • identifying file metadata;

  • direct self-identifying statements; and

  • other unnecessary information that could reveal their identity.

Self-citations should remain academically accurate but should not be phrased in a manner that unnecessarily reveals the author's identity.

3.23 Peer Review and Research Integrity

Reviewers should alert the editor if they identify possible:

  • plagiarism;

  • substantial text recycling;

  • duplicate publication;

  • fabricated or falsified data;

  • manipulated images;

  • citation manipulation;

  • unethical research;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • authorship irregularities; or

  • other publication-integrity concerns.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors about suspected misconduct unless instructed by the editor.

Suspected misconduct is handled under MAJIS's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

3.24 Peer Review and Ethical Oversight

Where manuscripts involve:

  • human participants;

  • personal data;

  • identifiable individuals;

  • vulnerable groups;

  • animals;

  • sensitive cultural materials; or

  • other ethically sensitive material,

reviewers and editors may assess whether the manuscript provides adequate ethical information.

Detailed requirements are governed by the MAJIS Ethical Oversight Policy.

3.25 Appeals Against Peer-Review Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision in accordance with the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal may be considered where there is evidence of:

  • a significant procedural error;

  • a material misunderstanding of the manuscript;

  • demonstrable bias;

  • inappropriate handling of the peer-review process; or

  • substantive new evidence that could reasonably affect the decision.

Disagreement with an editor's scholarly judgment, by itself, does not necessarily constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

MAJIS currently provides for one formal appeal within 14 days on grounds of process error or new evidence, with a decision by an uninvolved senior editor within 21 days.

3.26 Reviewer Disputes

Where a reviewer disputes the editorial handling of a manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriate senior editor may review the matter.

The journal should seek to protect:

  • confidentiality;

  • reviewer independence;

  • author fairness; and

  • integrity of the editorial record.

3.27 Post-Publication Peer Review

Peer review does not end the scholarly evaluation of an article at publication.

Readers may raise substantive concerns through the journal's post-publication mechanisms.

MAJIS may consider:

  • reader correspondence;

  • formal letters;

  • post-publication comments;

  • correction requests;

  • allegations of misconduct; or

  • other credible scholarly concerns.

Post-publication concerns are governed by the Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections Policy.

3.28 Recognition of Reviewers

MAJIS may recognise the contribution of peer reviewers through appropriate mechanisms, provided that reviewer confidentiality is preserved.

Any public acknowledgement of reviewers should be based on the reviewer's consent and should not disclose which reviewer reviewed which manuscript.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1 Initial Desk Check

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment covering:

  1. completeness of the submission;

  2. conformity with basic submission requirements;

  3. scope and relevance;

  4. apparent originality;

  5. plagiarism or text-overlap concerns;

  6. ethical disclosures;

  7. authorship information; and

  8. suitability for external peer review.

The target for the desk check is no more than seven days.

4.2 Assignment to a Handling Editor

A suitable editor is assigned according to:

  • subject expertise;

  • workload;

  • availability;

  • absence of conflicts of interest; and

  • independence from the authors.

The handling editor is responsible for coordinating the manuscript through peer review.

4.3 Reviewer Identification

The handling editor identifies potential reviewers using appropriate scholarly criteria.

Potential sources may include:

  • editorial databases;

  • established scholarly networks;

  • published literature;

  • reviewer databases;

  • professional associations;

  • previous qualified reviewers; and

  • other reliable academic sources.

Reviewer selection should not rely exclusively on author recommendations.

4.4 Reviewer Invitation

The reviewer invitation should contain:

  • manuscript title;

  • abstract or appropriate summary;

  • review deadline;

  • confidentiality requirements;

  • conflict-of-interest instructions;

  • review criteria;

  • instructions for submitting the report; and

  • relevant ethical guidance.

The reviewer should be given sufficient information to decide whether to accept the assignment.

4.5 Reviewer Acceptance

Before accepting, reviewers should confirm that:

  • they possess relevant expertise;

  • they have sufficient time;

  • no significant conflict exists;

  • they understand the confidentiality requirements; and

  • they agree to follow the journal's review guidelines.

4.6 Peer-Review Form

The MAJIS review form should encourage reviewers to assess, as applicable:

A. Relevance and Scope

  • Does the manuscript fit the scope of MAJIS?

  • Is the topic relevant to literary studies or related fields?

B. Originality

  • Does the manuscript provide an original contribution?

  • Does it engage appropriately with existing scholarship?

C. Argument and Analysis

  • Is the central argument clear?

  • Is the analysis coherent and adequately supported?

D. Methodology / Approach

  • Is the research or analytical approach appropriate?

  • Are methodological choices sufficiently explained?

E. Use of Sources

  • Are relevant sources used appropriately?

  • Are citations accurate and sufficient?

  • Are primary and secondary sources appropriately distinguished?

F. Scholarly Presentation

  • Is the manuscript logically organised?

  • Is the writing sufficiently clear?

  • Are tables, figures, quotations, translations, and other materials presented appropriately?

G. Ethical and Integrity Considerations

  • Are there apparent ethical concerns?

  • Are there possible plagiarism, duplicate-publication, or authorship concerns?

  • Are third-party materials appropriately attributed?

H. Overall Recommendation

The reviewer may recommend:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision; or

  • Reject.

The final editorial decision remains with the editor.

4.7 Confidential Comments to the Editor

Where the review system permits separate confidential comments, reviewers may communicate concerns to the editor that should not be disclosed to authors.

However, reviewers should not use confidential comments to make allegations that are unsupported by evidence.

4.8 Review Deadline

The standard target for external peer review is 21–35 days.

If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the agreed timeframe, the reviewer should notify the editorial office promptly.

The editor may:

  • extend the deadline;

  • seek another reviewer; or

  • obtain an additional review.

4.9 Reviewer Reminders

The editorial office may send reasonable reminders to reviewers.

Reminders should be professional and should recognise that peer review is a voluntary scholarly contribution.

4.10 Late Reviews

Where a reviewer does not respond or repeatedly fails to meet deadlines, the editor may withdraw the assignment and invite another reviewer.

A late review should not compromise the fairness of the editorial process.

4.11 Reviewer Reports

Review reports should be submitted through the journal's editorial management system whenever possible.

Reports should contain sufficient detail to allow:

  • authors to understand the substantive concerns;

  • editors to evaluate the recommendation; and

  • the journal to maintain an appropriate editorial record.

4.12 Editorial Synthesis

The handling editor should synthesise the reviewer reports and make an independent assessment.

Where appropriate, the decision letter should explain:

  • the principal scholarly concerns;

  • required revisions;

  • major ethical or methodological issues; and

  • the next stage of the process.

4.13 Revision Tracking

Authors submitting a revision should provide:

  • a clean revised manuscript where required;

  • a marked-up version where requested; and

  • a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

The editorial office should retain relevant versions in the manuscript record.

4.14 Additional Review Procedure

When additional review is required, the editor should:

  1. identify the unresolved issue;

  2. select a suitably independent specialist;

  3. provide the relevant manuscript information;

  4. preserve anonymity;

  5. evaluate the additional report alongside previous reports; and

  6. document the resulting decision.

4.15 Review Report Editing

Where review reports require editing for tone, confidentiality, or policy compliance, the original report should be retained in the editorial record.

Substantive changes to the meaning of the review should not be made.

MAJIS's published policy specifically provides for retention of originals and notification to reviewers where substantial edits are made.

4.16 Technical Protection of Anonymity

The OJS workflow should be configured to minimise accidental disclosure of reviewer and author identities.

Where technically feasible:

  • reviewer names should not appear in author-facing correspondence;

  • author information should not be included in reviewer files;

  • file metadata should be checked where necessary;

  • review files should be appropriately anonymised; and

  • access permissions should be restricted.

4.17 Confidentiality and AI Tools

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content to public or unauthorised AI tools.

Where an AI tool is authorised by the journal, the tool must satisfy appropriate requirements concerning:

  • confidentiality;

  • data retention;

  • training on user inputs;

  • security;

  • privacy; and

  • institutional or journal requirements.

Reviewers remain responsible for the final content of their reports.

4.18 Reviewer Misconduct

Potential reviewer misconduct may include:

  • disclosure of manuscript content;

  • appropriation of unpublished ideas;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • manipulation of citations;

  • deliberately hostile or discriminatory reviewing;

  • intentional delay of review;

  • impersonation;

  • unauthorised delegation; or

  • other conduct that compromises review integrity.

Such cases may be investigated under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

4.19 Record Keeping

MAJIS should retain appropriate records of the peer-review process, including:

  • reviewer invitations;

  • acceptances and declines;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • reviewer reports;

  • editorial decisions;

  • revision requests;

  • author responses;

  • additional reviews;

  • appeals; and

  • relevant correspondence.

Records should be handled confidentially and retained in accordance with the journal's applicable record-retention requirements.

5. Responsibilities

5.1 Authors

Authors are responsible for:

  • submitting an original manuscript;

  • accurately identifying authors;

  • anonymising the manuscript appropriately;

  • disclosing relevant conflicts of interest;

  • responding constructively to reviews;

  • providing accurate revisions;

  • addressing ethical concerns;

  • respecting reviewer confidentiality; and

  • ensuring that all information submitted to the journal is accurate.

5.2 Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for:

  • accepting assignments only within their expertise;

  • disclosing conflicts of interest;

  • maintaining confidentiality;

  • conducting objective assessments;

  • providing constructive comments;

  • avoiding discriminatory or offensive language;

  • meeting agreed deadlines;

  • identifying serious integrity concerns;

  • avoiding use of unpublished information; and

  • obtaining permission before delegating any review activity.

These responsibilities are consistent with COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

5.3 Handling Editors

Handling editors are responsible for:

  • selecting appropriate reviewers;

  • managing conflicts;

  • maintaining confidentiality;

  • evaluating reviewer reports;

  • seeking additional reviews when appropriate;

  • making independent editorial recommendations or decisions within their authority; and

  • communicating decisions professionally.

5.4 Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for:

  • overseeing the integrity of the peer-review system;

  • ensuring consistent application of the policy;

  • resolving significant peer-review disputes;

  • ensuring editorial independence;

  • overseeing appeals; and

  • taking appropriate action when peer-review misconduct is suspected.

5.5 Managing Editor

The Managing Editor is responsible for:

  • coordinating the technical workflow;

  • monitoring review timelines;

  • sending reviewer invitations and reminders;

  • maintaining records;

  • supporting communication between editors and reviewers; and

  • ensuring that the OJS workflow operates appropriately.

5.6 Research Integrity Editor

The Research Integrity Editor supports the investigation of:

  • reviewer misconduct;

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • plagiarism;

  • fabricated or falsified material;

  • authorship manipulation; and

  • other research-integrity concerns arising during review.

6. Peer Review and Editorial Independence

The peer-review process must remain independent of inappropriate external influence.

Editorial decisions must not be determined by:

  • financial considerations;

  • institutional pressure;

  • author status;

  • political influence;

  • commercial interests;

  • reviewer personal interests;

  • sponsorship;

  • advertising; or

  • other non-scholarly factors.

Reviewers provide evidence and expert opinion; editors retain responsibility for interpreting those reports and making the editorial decision.

This principle is consistent with MAJIS's Journal Management and Editorial Independence Policy.

7. Relationship with Other MAJIS Policies

This policy should be read together with:

  • Allegations of Misconduct;

  • Authorship and Contributorship;

  • Complaints and Appeals;

  • Conflicts of Interest;

  • Data and Reproducibility;

  • Ethical Oversight;

  • Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Licensing;

  • Journal Management and Editorial Independence;

  • Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections;

  • AI Usage Policy;

  • Privacy Statement; and

  • Repository and Archiving Policies.

These policies collectively establish MAJIS's publication-ethics framework.

8. COPE Resources

This policy is informed by the following COPE resources:

8.1 COPE Core Practice: Peer Review Processes

COPE states that:

“All peer review processes must be transparently described and well managed.”

COPE also recommends that journals provide training for editors and reviewers and maintain policies covering:

  • peer-review models;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • appeals;

  • disputes; and

  • ethical conduct in peer review.

8.2 COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers emphasise:

  • confidentiality;

  • objectivity;

  • appropriate expertise;

  • timeliness;

  • constructive criticism;

  • disclosure of conflicts of interest;

  • identification of ethical concerns; and

  • responsible handling of unpublished information.

8.3 Relevant COPE Guidance

MAJIS may also consult relevant COPE resources concerning:

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • reviewer conflicts of interest;

  • peer-review confidentiality;

  • appeals;

  • editorial decision-making;

  • allegations of misconduct; and

  • post-publication corrections and retractions.

Official resources are available through the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

9. Final Statement

MAJIS considers peer review a fundamental component of responsible scholarly communication.

The journal therefore maintains a double-anonymous peer-review system designed to promote fair, independent, and academically rigorous evaluation of manuscripts.

For manuscripts proceeding to external review, MAJIS aims to obtain at least two independent external reviews where available. Editors may obtain additional reviews when necessary to resolve substantive uncertainty or conflicting assessments.

The journal's target operational timelines are a desk check of no more than seven days, external peer review of approximately 21–35 days, and a first editorial decision within 45 days where circumstances permit. These targets may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions, ethical concerns, and other legitimate circumstances.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, provide objective and evidence-based assessments, treat authors respectfully, and identify credible ethical concerns. Editors are responsible for independently evaluating reviewer reports and retaining final editorial responsibility.

MAJIS may edit reviewer reports for tone, confidentiality, or policy compliance without changing their substantive meaning and will retain the original reports as part of the editorial record.

Through these procedures, MAJIS seeks to ensure that peer review contributes to the quality, fairness, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.

This policy has been developed with reference to COPE Core Practice 9: Peer Review Processes and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. It does not constitute or imply COPE approval, certification, or endorsement.