Peer Review Policy

Journal of Advancing Global Order, Regions, and Antiquity (J-AGORA), published by Synergy Publication, is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, fairness, transparency, and ethical integrity in academic publishing.

All submitted manuscripts, except editorials, invited commentaries, and book reviews, undergo rigorous peer review in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and internationally recognized best practices for scholarly publishing.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are screened for plagiarism and inappropriate textual overlap using iThenticate plagiarism detection software provided through Crossref. The editorial team carefully evaluates similarity reports to distinguish legitimate scholarly referencing from potential cases of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical academic practices.

Type of Peer Review

Journal of Advancing Global Order, Regions, and Antiquity (J-AGORA) employs a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review process, whereby:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed unless a reviewer voluntarily chooses to reveal them. Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use unpublished material for personal benefit or research purposes. This process ensures fair and impartial evaluation based solely on academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance, regardless of nationality, institutional affiliation, career stage, gender, or academic reputation.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor evaluates whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of J-AGORA, including global governance, international relations, political studies, regional studies, sociology, history, archaeology, heritage studies, historiography, and related humanities and social science disciplines.
  • Meets minimum standards of originality, scholarly contribution, academic clarity, and research relevance.
  • Complies with ethical requirements, formatting standards, and submission guidelines.
  • Passes plagiarism screening, with a recommended similarity threshold of less than 10%, excluding properly cited references and unavoidable academic terminology where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be desk-rejected without external review, normally within 7–14 days of submission.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent experts with relevant subject knowledge.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • Expertise relevant to the manuscript topic, methodology, and disciplinary area.
  • Knowledge of relevant geographical, historical, political, social, or cultural contexts.
  • Diversity of scholarly perspectives and methodological approaches.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest, including institutional, professional, or personal relationships.

3. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to humanities and social science scholarship.
  • Relevance to global order, regional transformations, historical inquiry, or related fields.
  • Theoretical framework and conceptual contribution.
  • Research design, methodology, use of sources, evidence, and analytical approach.
  • Accuracy, interpretation, and critical engagement with existing scholarship.
  • Clarity, structure, academic writing quality, and overall scholarly presentation.
  • Ethical integrity of research practices, sources, and reporting.

Reviewers recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions
  • Reject

4. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes the final decision based on reviewer evaluations, manuscript quality, and editorial assessment.

If reviewer recommendations differ significantly, an additional reviewer or editorial board member may be consulted. Authors are generally informed of the first decision within 8–12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

5. Revisions

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a detailed, point-by-point response explaining how reviewer and editorial comments have been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional peer review when substantial modifications are required.

6. Final Acceptance

Only manuscripts that adequately address reviewer feedback and meet J-AGORA’s scholarly, ethical, and editorial standards are accepted for publication.

Transparency and Timelines

This peer review policy is publicly available on the journal website to ensure transparency in editorial procedures.

  • Average time to first decision: 8–12 weeks
  • Average time from submission to publication: 4–6 months (depending on revision cycles)

Submission, acceptance, and publication dates are displayed on all published articles to maintain transparency and accountability.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and research materials.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.
  • Assess manuscripts fairly without personal, political, institutional, or ideological bias.
  • Avoid inappropriate, discriminatory, or unprofessional comments.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless voluntarily disclosed.

Reviewer recognition may be provided through:

  • Annual acknowledgment on the journal website (with reviewer consent).
  • Integration with reviewer recognition services such as Publons or ReviewerCredits.
  • Reviewer certificates upon request.

Editorial Independence and Ethical Oversight

Editorial decisions are made independently by the journal’s editorial team and are based solely on scholarly quality, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and peer review recommendations. Synergy Publication does not interfere with editorial decisions.

Special issues, guest-edited collections, and invited contributions are subject to the same rigorous peer review standards as regular submissions. Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled independently to ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

The journal follows COPE guidelines for handling appeals, complaints, corrections, and allegations of research or publication misconduct.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal request to the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed explanation and justification. Appeals are reviewed carefully and may involve consultation with additional editors or independent experts.

All appeals, complaints, and concerns regarding editorial decisions or publication ethics are handled according to COPE principles to ensure fairness, transparency, and academic integrity.