Review Model and Editorial Decisions

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject or methodological expertise. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors. Additional specialist assessment may be obtained when required.

Standard pathway: Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Author Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision.

Reviewer recommendations follow the applicable OJS options: Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, or Decline Submission. Recommendations are advisory and do not determine outcomes through simple voting. The responsible academic editor evaluates the manuscript, review evidence, author responses, revised version, integrity concerns, and journal policies before reaching or recommending a final scientific-editorial decision. Divergent reports may require clarification or an additional independent assessment.

ABIM accepts three manuscript types: Research Paper, Literature Review Paper, and Conceptual Paper. Research designs, analytical techniques, datasets, and review approaches do not constitute additional manuscript categories. Assessment must be appropriate to the declared manuscript type and the work actually undertaken.

Scientific evaluation, reviewer selection, recommendations, and editorial decisions remain independent of APC payment, ability to pay, and waiver eligibility. APC or waiver administration begins only after final scientific-editorial acceptance.

Invitation, Expertise and Conflicts of Interest

• Accept an invitation only when the manuscript falls within the reviewer's disciplinary or methodological expertise and can be assessed within the timeframe stated in the invitation.
• Promptly disclose actual or potential financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal conflicts of interest.
• Decline or consult the responsible editor when independence, sufficient expertise, or timely completion cannot be assured. Disclose uncertain relationships before proceeding.
• Do not attempt to identify blinded authors, search for identifying information to circumvent anonymity, contact authors directly, disclose the reviewer's identity to bypass the review model, share the manuscript, or delegate the assignment without editorial authorization.
• Editors and reviewers must not assess their own submissions or participate in handling manuscripts for which a material conflict exists. Such assignments require an appropriate independent academic editor or reviewer.

Scientific Review Criteria

• Relevance and contribution: Fit with a recognized ABIM scholarly field, a clear problem or research gap, originality, and a meaningful contribution. All fields expressly recognized in the Aims & Scope have equal standing. An additional marketing or industrial-marketing variable is not required when another recognized field independently establishes relevance.
• Scholarly grounding: A clear research, review, or conceptual purpose; coherent reasoning; and appropriate literature, theory, or conceptual foundations.
• Methodological or analytical credibility: Transparent and defensible research procedures, review methods, or conceptual development appropriate to the manuscript's type, questions, and stated purpose.
• Evidence and interpretation: Credible analysis or synthesis, correspondence between evidence and conclusions, substantive discussion, proportionate implications, and recognition of limitations.
• Research integrity: Appropriate ethics and consent where required, responsible data handling, accurate and verifiable citations, permissions where applicable, transparent declarations, and absence of serious originality or reference concerns.

Research Papers: Assess whether the Introduction establishes the problem, gap, purpose, novelty, and contribution; the Review of Literature provides appropriate grounding; and the Research Methodology transparently reports the design, context, sampling or cases, data, measures, procedures, analysis, and applicable ethics. Within Results and Discussion, research results and their interpretation should be clearly distinguished. Conclusions must remain consistent with the evidence and design limitations.

Literature Review Papers: Assess whether the review approach is explicitly identified and justified, and whether literature identification, selection, evaluation, organization, analysis, and synthesis are sufficiently transparent. The review should establish substantive themes, relationships, contradictions, developments, gaps, or conceptual insights. Bibliometric maps, network diagrams, descriptive counts, or lists of studies alone are insufficient without scholarly interpretation and synthesis.

Conceptual Papers: Assess the importance and clarity of the conceptual problem, the adequacy of theoretical foundations, the logic and originality of arguments, the development of relationships or propositions where appropriate, and the contribution to scholarly understanding. Examine boundary conditions, limitations, and implications. Do not require authors to report empirical procedures or results that were not part of the conceptual study.

Assess each manuscript according to its actual methods and scholarly purpose. Do not impose unrelated analyses, a preferred method without academic justification, or unnecessary disciplinary requirements outside the manuscript's recognized field. Citations must not be coerced to the reviewer's own work, ABIM, preferred journals, colleagues, or research groups. Reviewers are not copyeditors; identify language and presentation problems where they materially affect understanding.

Constructive Review Reports

Reports should distinguish major scientific, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, analytical, ethical, or interpretive concerns from minor presentation corrections. Explain each concern's significance and provide actionable recommendations supported by the manuscript and relevant scholarship. Maintain respectful, proportionate, and evidence-based language. A clear report may follow Overall Assessment → Major Comments → Minor Comments → Recommendation.

Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, improper authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or other integrity concerns confidentially to the responsible editor with supporting evidence. Do not independently investigate authors or contact their institutions. Unpublished information must not be used for personal, professional, research, competitive, publication, or commercial advantage.

Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Authors asked to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to substantive editorial and reviewer comments. Reviewers should check that the response addresses each material issue, that claimed amendments appear in the revised text, and that the changes are adequately supported.

Subsequent review should prioritize unresolved issues from earlier decisions. New major requirements should be introduced only when revisions create a material problem, new evidence reveals an important concern, or a significant scientific or integrity issue was reasonably missed. Any new requirement should be academically necessary and explained. Reviewer recommendations remain advisory; unresolved matters and final decisions are handled by the responsible academic editor.

Confidentiality, AI and Communication

Confidential manuscripts, extracts, supplementary materials, unpublished data, author information, review reports, and correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible or otherwise insecure AI services. Any proposed external assistance involving confidential content requires explicit editorial authorization and adequate safeguards. AI systems must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment, verification, or accountability.

Respond to invitations and submit reports within the stated timeframe. Inform the Editorial Office promptly of delays, insufficient expertise, emerging conflicts, suspected confidentiality breaches, or technical difficulties. Manuscript-specific communication should ordinarily use OJS to preserve an appropriate editorial record.

Qualified scholars may register in OJS and express interest in reviewing. Registration does not automatically confer reviewer status, public directory membership, or an assignment. Any administrative acknowledgement or certificate remains subject to appropriate journal arrangements, consent, and confidentiality; reviewer participation does not imply employment, an APC discount, or preferential editorial treatment.

Legitimate changes to reviewer appointments, scope, guidance, forms, or procedures do not retrospectively invalidate completed peer-review records, editorial decisions, publication dates, DOI records, or other established scholarly records.

Reviewer administration: Muh. Haerdiansyah Syahnur, Managing Editor, at advancesresearch@gmail.com. Scientific-editorial correspondence: Mohammad Ashoer, Editor-in-Chief, at editor@advancesinresearch.id.

Reviewer Directory → · Publication Ethics → · Register in OJS → · Official Contact →