AMERICAN JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Peer Review Policy

The American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, confidential, and impartial peer-review process. Peer review is an essential component of the journal's quality assurance process and is designed to evaluate the scholarly merit, methodological rigor, originality, ethical integrity, and contribution of submitted manuscripts. AJQR follows a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts must be submitted through AJQR's online submission system and comply with the journal's aims and scope, author guidelines, formatting requirements, and publication ethics policies. Following submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of AJQR;
  • Meets appropriate standards of scholarly quality and presentation;
  • Demonstrates an appropriate qualitative research or qualitative methodological focus;
  • Complies with the journal's ethical and submission requirements; and
  • Is sufficiently developed to warrant external peer review.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scholarly or methodological quality, or do not comply with AJQR's policies may be declined without external peer review (desk rejection).

2. Originality and Research Integrity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism-detection and other research-integrity tools to identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text recycling, or other research-integrity concerns. When significant concerns are identified, the editorial team may request clarification from the authors, reject the manuscript, or take other appropriate action in accordance with AJQR's publication ethics policies. Screening tools support, but do not replace, editorial judgment.

3. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area and/or methodology.

Under AJQR's double-anonymous peer-review process:

  • Author Anonymity: Authors are required to prepare manuscripts for anonymous review by removing names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other information that could reasonably reveal their identities.
  • Reviewer Anonymity: Reviewers' identities are kept confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.

This process is intended to minimize potential bias and ensure that manuscripts are evaluated primarily on their scholarly and methodological merit. Although AJQR takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed, particularly when a manuscript's subject matter, citations, data, previous conference presentations, or prior dissemination may make an author's identity recognizable.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly expertise, methodological knowledge, publication and research experience, and relevance to the manuscript's subject matter. AJQR seeks reviewers who are knowledgeable in qualitative research methods and, where appropriate, familiar with the specific disciplinary, theoretical, cultural, or geographic context addressed by the manuscript.

Where practicable, the journal seeks appropriate disciplinary, methodological, institutional, geographic, and international representation among its reviewers. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. If a conflict could reasonably affect the impartiality of the review, the reviewer will be excused from the review process and an alternative reviewer will be selected.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and Contribution: The manuscript should make an original and meaningful contribution to qualitative research, methodology, theory, policy, or practice.
  • Methodological Rigor: The qualitative methodology and research design should be appropriate to the research questions and implemented with sufficient rigor, transparency, and justification.
  • Theoretical or Conceptual Contribution: The manuscript should be appropriately grounded in relevant theoretical, conceptual, and scholarly literature.
  • Alignment: The research purpose, research questions, methodology, analysis, findings, discussion, and conclusions should demonstrate logical alignment.
  • Analysis and Interpretation: The analysis should be sufficiently rigorous, and interpretations and conclusions should be supported by the evidence presented.
  • Relevant Literature: The manuscript should appropriately engage with current and relevant scholarship.
  • Clarity and Organization: The manuscript should be clearly written, logically structured, and accessible to its intended scholarly audience.
  • Ethical Considerations: The research should comply with appropriate ethical standards, particularly when involving human participants, vulnerable populations, confidential information, or sensitive data.
  • Relevance to AJQR: The manuscript should contribute meaningfully to the journal's aims, scope, and international readership.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based, and professional feedback that assists the editors in reaching an informed decision and helps authors strengthen their manuscripts.

6. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

 

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should ensure that they have appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript and sufficient time to complete the review. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality. When such a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation or contact the editorial office for guidance.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and solely on their scholarly and methodological merit;
  • Assess the originality, significance, and contribution of the study;
  • Evaluate whether the research questions, qualitative methodology, data collection, analysis, findings, and conclusions are appropriately aligned;
  • Assess the rigor, transparency, and appropriateness of the qualitative research design and analytical procedures;
  • Consider whether interpretations and conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence presented;
  • Evaluate engagement with relevant and current scholarly literature;
  • Consider whether appropriate ethical standards, including informed consent and ethical approval where applicable, have been followed;
  • Provide clear, specific, constructive, and evidence-based recommendations for improving the manuscript;
  • Identify significant omissions, inconsistencies, unsupported claims, or methodological concerns;
  • Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, fabrication, falsification, or other potential research-integrity concerns;
  • Avoid requesting unnecessary citations, particularly citations to the reviewer's own publications;
  • Maintain a professional and respectful tone in all reviewer comments; and
  • Submit the review within the timeframe requested by the journal.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, scholarly, professional, financial, or competitive advantage.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts with colleagues, students, or other individuals or involve another person in preparing the review without prior authorization from the AJQR Editorial Office.

Use of Artificial Intelligence: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, unpublished data, tables, figures, supplementary materials, or other confidential peer-review information to publicly accessible generative AI systems or unauthorized third-party platforms. Reviewers are responsible for providing their own independent scholarly assessment and remain accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their review reports.

Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, or collaborative relationship that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their evaluation. When impartial review cannot be assured, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

Following their evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor. Editors consider the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's scholarly quality, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, relevance to AJQR, and the authors' responses to previous reviews. When reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the editor may seek an additional independent review or make an editorial decision based on the available reports and the editor's own scholarly assessment. Authors receive the editorial decision together with relevant anonymized reviewer and editorial comments.

7. Revision and Re-evaluation

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to carefully address the comments provided by the reviewers and editors.

Authors should submit:

  1. A revised manuscript; and
  2. A detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation has not been followed, authors should provide an appropriate scholarly justification.

Revisions should be submitted within the timeframe specified in the editorial decision. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when further expert assessment is considered necessary. A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance or publication.

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is formally accepted only when the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor determines that it meets AJQR's scholarly, methodological, ethical, and publication standards. Following final acceptance, manuscripts proceed to production, which may include copyediting, proofreading, typesetting, metadata preparation, DOI registration, and final author proof review. Accepted manuscripts may be published online first before being assigned to a regular journal issue.

9. Confidentiality and Reviewers' Ethical Responsibilities

All submitted manuscripts and associated materials are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, professional, or competitive advantage. Information obtained through the peer-review process must remain confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscript content, including abstracts, data, tables, figures, or supplementary materials, with another person without prior authorization from the editorial office.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of a manuscript to publicly accessible generative AI systems or unauthorized third-party platforms or tools. Reviewers are responsible for providing their own independent scholarly assessment and for the accuracy, integrity, and content of their review reports. Editors are likewise required to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer identities, and peer-review information.

10. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, or other interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their judgment. When an editor has a conflict of interest concerning a submission, responsibility for the manuscript will be transferred to another qualified editor who can manage the peer-review and decision-making process independently.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by personal relationships, institutional affiliations, financial considerations, Article Processing Charges (APCs), or other non-scholarly factors.

11. Editorial Independence

AJQR maintains a clear separation between editorial decision-making and financial or administrative considerations. The ability or willingness of an author to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC) has no influence on whether a manuscript is sent for peer review or subsequently accepted or rejected. Editors make publication decisions solely on scholarly merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and the outcome of the peer-review process.

12. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant error occurred during the peer-review or editorial decision-making process. An appeal should clearly identify the decision being challenged and provide a specific, evidence-based explanation of why reconsideration is warranted. Disagreement with reviewer comments or an editorial decision alone does not necessarily constitute sufficient grounds for appeal. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or, where appropriate and practicable, another qualified editor who was not materially involved in the original decision. Additional expert advice may be sought when necessary. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author.

13. Special Issues

Manuscripts submitted to AJQR special issues are subject to the same scholarly, ethical, and peer-review standards as manuscripts submitted to regular issues. Special issue manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening and double-anonymous peer review and are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Special issues remain under the overall responsibility and editorial oversight of the AJQR Editor-in-Chief. Guest Editors must comply with AJQR's editorial, peer-review, confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, and publication ethics policies. Guest Editors must not independently handle manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest. Manuscripts authored or co-authored by Guest Editors must be assigned to and handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the submission.

Further requirements concerning Guest Editor selection, responsibilities, conflicts of interest, manuscript handling, and editorial oversight are provided in AJQR's Special Issue and Guest Editor Policy.

14. Post-Publication Review, Corrections, and Retractions

AJQR remains committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record after publication. When credible concerns regarding errors, research integrity, authorship, ethical compliance, or publication misconduct are raised after publication, AJQR will investigate the matter in accordance with its publication ethics and post-publication policies. Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, the journal may publish a correction, retraction, or expression of concern, as appropriate. AJQR follows relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when addressing corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and other post-publication matters.

15. Commitment to Peer-Review Integrity

Through its peer-review process, the American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) seeks to ensure that published scholarship meets high standards of academic quality, methodological rigor, research integrity, transparency, and ethical practice.

AJQR is committed to a peer-review system that is fair, independent, constructive, and appropriate to the interdisciplinary and international nature of qualitative research.