Focus and Scope

International Journal of West Asian Studies is published as an online journal (e-journal). It publishes original research on subject relevance to the original regions. IJWAS covers the Middle East, South Asia,South East Asia, parts of Africa (Egypt, Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Mauritania, North African countries), parts of Europe (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia), the former Soviet Union as well as other regions. Being a multidisciplinary journal, the scopes of IJWAS include:  politics, history, civilization, law, economics, cultural studies, language studies, education, philosophy, communications, sociology, anthropology, religious studies, psychology, science and technology, etc. 

Research articles, views, book reviews, review articles and short report on West Asia in particular, and relations of West Asia with Malaysia and ASEAN, in general are welcomed.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

a. Reciprocity

Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the field as a whole, and should be encouraged. Authors who submit manuscripts to The Journal are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review manuscripts for The Journal.

b. Double-Blind Peer-Review

The Journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby the Authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of knowledge. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by the Editor-in-Chief to provide assessment of a written research manuscript, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for The Journal.

Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to Reviewers, and vice versa. Reviewers should avoid doing or saying anything that could identify them to the Authors of a manuscript they are reviewing or reviewed.

Regular reviewers selected for The Journal should meet minimum standards regarding their background in the research field, publication of articles and formal training.

Reviewers are experts in the scientific topic addressed in the manuscripts they review, and are selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Individuals who have a major competing interest in the subject of the manuscript are not appointed as reviewers for such manuscript.

c. Quality of Review

Manuscripts received by The Journal will be evaluated by the Editorial board that will judge whether a manuscript is of potential interest to the readers of The Journal. Manuscripts that are of interest, formatted according to the guideline for Authors and presented fairly well are sent for review. Typically, one or two reviewers are employed. Manuscript may be sent to other specialized experts such as on statistics or a particular technique where a scientist in that particular technique is needed to evaluate it.

Reviewers are assessed on the quality of review and other performance characteristics by the Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal quality and performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to The Journal’s Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editor-in- Chief but otherwise kept confidential.

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. A good review includes the following inputs from the reviewers:

     •  identify and comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design and characterization

     •  comment accurately and constructively on the quality of the Author’s interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its

     •  comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the

     •  comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of substandard scientific

     •  provide the Authors with useful suggestions to improve the comments should be constructive and Personal comments regarding the Authors is not permitted.

     •  provide the Editor-in-Chief with the proper context and perspective to make a recommendation on the acceptability of the Editor-in-Chief then makes a decision based on the reviewers’ recommendation, as follows:

          ◊ Accept without revisions;

          ◊ Accept with minor revisions to be made by the Authors;

          ◊ Return to the Authors for major modifications, Authors to revise & resubmit for another round of reviews depending on the request of the reviewers;

          ◊ Reject, with encouragement for resubmission; reasons for rejection must be given by the Editor-in-Chief

          ◊ Reject Outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems, or if the work constitutes any unethical publishing behavior. The Editor-in-Chief must give the reasons for

Reviewers can recommend for particular course of action. However, the Editor-in-Chief may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice from different reviewers. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the Editor-in-Chief with the information on which a decision should be based.

All reviewers are informed of the journal’s expectations, and Editor-in-Chief will make every effort to assist reviewers in improving the quality of review. The Editor-in-Chief will access the quality of review routinely by ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics periodically.

d. Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewers should assess the manuscript sent to them for scope, accuracy, quality, relevance and contribution to the field. They should inform and return the manuscript to the Editor-in- Chief if they decide that the manuscript is not within their field of expertise or that they are not able to complete the review in the stated time.

The manuscript for review is privileged information. Reviewers must treat it as confidential and it should not be retained or copied in whatever means. The manuscript should not be shared with the reviewers’ colleagues without the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers and Editor-in-Chief must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication. Such use may constitute as conflict of interest and is an unacceptable behavior.

In cases of suspected misconduct, reviewers should notify the Editor-in-Chief in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties.

e. Timeliness

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline, he/she should inform the Editor-in-Chief immediately to determine whether a longer time period or another Reviewer should be appointed. Typically, the time to complete a review is four weeks.

Publication Frequency

The journal is published annually.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Peer Review Process