Peer Review Process

Aureum Academic Journal (AAJ) operates a double-anonymous peer-review model designed to ensure fair, independent, and academically rigorous manuscript evaluation.

1. Initial Screening

Each manuscript is examined for originality, journal scope, scholarly quality, research integrity, completeness, ethical compliance, and conformity with the Author Guidelines.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy essential requirements may be rejected before external review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject specialists. Reviewers are selected according to relevant expertise, scholarly experience, availability, and freedom from conflicting interests.

3. Double-Anonymous Review

The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another as far as reasonably possible.

Reviewers examine:

  • Originality and significance

  • Research objectives and scholarly contribution

  • Relevance and quality of the literature

  • Theoretical or conceptual foundations

  • Methodological appropriateness

  • Reliability of evidence and analysis

  • Validity of results and interpretations

  • Research ethics and transparency

  • Quality of presentation

  • Conclusions and limitations

  • Relevance to the journal's scope

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

5. Editorial Evaluation

The editor assesses reviewers' findings and may request further expert opinions if the reports are insufficient or substantially contradictory.

6. Revision

Authors respond to reviewer comments and explain revisions. Additional independent review may be required for substantial changes.

7. Final Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor, taking account of the scholarly evidence and reviewer reports.

8. Editorial Independence

Submissions involving editors, editorial board members, or publisher representatives must be handled independently, without preferential treatment.

9. Confidentiality

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, unpublished data, and editorial records must remain confidential throughout the review process.