Peer Review Policy
Peer review is the process whereby the quality of a manuscript is evaluated prior to publication. Most articles published in Asian JO are peer reviewed by two ophthalmologists specialized in the manuscript’s specific topic. Peer reviewers are specialists in their field who volunteer their time and expertise to assess manuscripts and provide recommendations for improvement. Asian JO’s peer reviewers work in an ad honorem capacity, i.e. they are not financially remunerated by the journal. We ask reviewers to disclose any potential conflict of interest prior to agreeing to review.
Prior to evaluating the manuscript’s scientific merit, submissions are checked for adherence to submission guidelines, found here. Manuscripts that do not adhere to the guidelines will be sent back to authors for revision. If the manuscript still does not comply with the guidelines after revision, it will be automatically declined. Only submissions that comply with the guidelines will be considered for further stages of review.
Prior to peer review, manuscripts undergo a pre-review evaluation by the journal editors to assess the manuscript’s overall quality and suitability according to Asian JO’s scope. After this evaluation, the Managing Editor may decline the submission or accept the submission for peer review.
Original articles undergo peer review by two external reviewers; brief reports and case reports/case series undergo peer review by one external reviewer. Letters to the editor are reviewed by the journal editors. The peer-review process is single blind: reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but authors are blind to the reviewers’ identities.
Manuscripts will undergo a total of two rounds of review. Peer review does not guarantee publication. Authors will be notified at every step of the process through the journal website, so we request that authors check their email periodically for notifications from Asian JO.
All manuscripts should fit the journal scope, adhere to the journal’s ethics policy, address novel or emerging aspects, have clinical relevance, and be clear, concise, complete, and original. Reviewers are asked to be fair and objective in their evaluation of the manuscript, as well as to raise any criticisms constructively with the aim of improving the manuscript, even when the submission does not meet journal standards.
In the first round of review, reviewers are asked to critically assess the manuscript according to a set of criteria for each article type.
For Original Articles, evaluation of quality involves consideration of whether the research question is adequately formulated and the methods used to answer it are well described; the design and methods are appropriate to answer the stated research question; the data analysis is appropriate; and the conclusions are supported by the results. The title and abstract should be relevant and concise, tables and figures should accurately reflect and aid understanding of the manuscript's information, and the references should be relevant and up to date.
For Case Reports/Case Series, evaluation of quality involves consideration of whether the cases are presented from and observational and descriptive perspective and involve unique, novel, or interesting aspects in terms of presentation or management. The title and abstract should be relevant and concise, tables and figures should accurately reflect and aid understanding of the manuscript's information, and the references should be relevant and up to date.
For Brief Reports, evaluation of quality involves consideration of whether the report focuses on insightful new clinical findings, understanding of new concepts, and/or investigational observations. The title and abstract should be relevant and concise, tables and figures should accurately reflect and aid understanding of the manuscript's information, and the references should be relevant and up to date.
The possible outcomes of the first stage of peer review based on the reviewers’ recommendations are:
- Accept the submission.
- Request revisions, which will then be subjected to a second round of peer review.
- Decline the submission.
If revisions have been requested, authors will be asked to upload a revised manuscript with track changes incorporating the feedback received in the first round of review along with a reply letter addressing the comments by the reviewers. This revised manuscript will then be subjected to a second round of peer review by one or both reviewers assigned to the first review. In this second round of review, reviewers will assess whether the authors have addressed the issues raised in the previous review round fully and satisfactorily. If this is the case, the manuscript will be accepted for publication and moved to copyediting. If the manuscript still fails to address substantial issues, it will be declined.
Submissions and peer-review are managed by Edmund Ong and Rachel Xuan. If your submission is currently being processed, please contact them by adding a message in the Pre-Review Discussions pane (Submissions tab) or Review Discussions pane (Review tab) available for your submission in the journal website.
Edmund Ong: email@example.com
Rachel Xuan: firstname.lastname@example.org