Peer Review Process
The Journal of Actuarial, Finance and Risk Management (JAFRM) uses a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, objectivity, and academic integrity of published manuscripts.
In the double-blind review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the JAFRM online submission system. Manuscripts should be prepared according to the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript template. To support the double-blind review process, authors should ensure that their submitted manuscript does not contain information that directly identifies the authors or their affiliations.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to determine whether they are appropriate for the journal's scope and meet the basic requirements for academic quality, originality, and manuscript preparation. Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope or do not meet the basic submission requirements may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.
3. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and suitability to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and disclose any potential conflict of interest.
4. Double-Blind Peer Review
The selected reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently without knowing the identities of the authors. Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript objectively and provide constructive comments concerning, among other aspects:
- originality and relevance of the research;
- clarity of the research objectives;
- appropriateness of the methodology;
- validity of the analysis;
- quality and interpretation of the results;
- quality of the discussion;
- adequacy of references; and
- overall contribution to the field.
The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
5. Editorial Decision
After considering the reviewers' comments and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript, the Editor makes an editorial decision.
Possible decisions include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
The Editor may consider the reviewers' recommendations together with other relevant factors when making the final editorial decision.
6. Revision
If revisions are required, authors are asked to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations. Authors should provide a clear response to the reviewers' comments and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript. A revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
7. Final Decision and Publication
After the review and revision process has been completed, the Editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the editorial and production processes before publication.
8. Confidentiality and Reviewer Responsibilities
All manuscripts submitted to JAFRM and all information obtained during the peer review process must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes. Reviewers should also decline an invitation to review a manuscript if they have a potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their evaluation.
