Review Protocols

JASC operates a full-spectrum review policy, allowing authors and reviewers to choose from three protocols:

• Double-anonymous review (default): Neither author(s) nor reviewer(s) identities are disclosed. This is the default protocol when no preference is indicated.
• Single-anonymous review: Author(s) identity is disclosed to the reviewer, but the reviewer remains anonymous.
• Open review: The identities of both author(s) and reviewer(s) are disclosed. The author is informed of the reviewer’s identity after the review is submitted. Reviewers agree to be contacted by the author if the author wishes to do so.

All peer reviews of Original Articles are conducted by external experts who are not members of the editorial team. A minimum of two reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. Supplementary materials are not typically subject to peer review unless specifically indicated.

 

Evaluation Criteria

Upon receipt, all Original Articles undergo a thorough editorial review coordinated by the Editor-in-Chief, using a four-eyes principle. The following criteria are applied:

• Theoretical Grounding: The article should be theoretically grounded, drawing on relevant literature and established theoretical frameworks within, adjacent, or relevant to the field of Awareness-Based Systems Change. The authors should demonstrate an understanding of existing theories and how their article connects, departs from, or extends this knowledge base.
• Contextualization of Knowledge: The article should explicitly address how the knowledge produced is situated within specific contexts. It should highlight the socio-cultural, organizational, and environmental factors that shape the research outcomes and emphasize the importance of context in understanding and interpreting the findings.
• Implications for Systems Change: All submissions must be closely aligned with Awareness-Based Systems Change. They should either demonstrate or at least indicate how the knowledge they present has tangible implications for systems change efforts.
• Onto-Epistemological Stance: Articles should adopt an onto-epistemological perspective that underscores the context and embeddedness of knowledge. They should recognize the relational and embodied nature of knowledge production and show how social, cultural, and historical factors influence the author’s standpoint, comprehension, and the research itself.

Exclusion Criteria
Submissions may be declined during the initial editorial screening for the following reasons:
• Solely Conceptual Paper: The article is purely conceptual and not derived from, or embedded in, a concrete field of practice. There isn’t a clear demonstration of how the presented theories have arisen from reflective engagement with a practice context or how they illuminate such context.
• Lack of Relevance: The article does not directly address Awareness-Based Systems Change or fails to demonstrate a clear connection to the topic.
• Epistemological Oversights: The article neglects to acknowledge the embeddedness and contextualization of knowledge production or lacks an understanding of the relational nature of knowledge.
• Weak or Non-Existing Theoretical Foundation: The article lacks appropriate theoretical grounding, failing to engage with relevant literature or established theoretical frameworks within the field.
• Ignoring Contextual Factors: The article overlooks the importance of context in understanding and interpreting research findings, providing insufficient information about the socio-cultural, organizational, or environmental factors (field conditions).
• Insufficient Substantiation: The article lacks empirical evidence, data, or logical reasoning to substantiate its claims and arguments. The research methods may be flawed, and the authors may not report limitations or biases transparently.
• Lack of Clarity and Coherence: The article is poorly written, lacks logical organization, or does not effectively communicate ideas and arguments. The language and terminology may be inappropriate or confusing, making it difficult for the reader to understand the content.

Only articles passing the initial editorial screening will be forwarded to peer review. In cases of minor issues, authors will receive feedback alongside the peer review results. The Editorial Team reserves its right to issue a desk refusal.

Additional Criteria for Empirical Articles
• Straightforward Research Question: The empirical research should clearly articulate a specific research question that aligns with Awareness-Based Systems Change. The question should address the embeddedness of research findings in data and highlight the importance of understanding the context in which the data was collected.
• Rigorous Methodology: The research should employ a rigorous methodology that ensures data collection and analysis are systematically and culturally appropriate for the research question and context.
• Contextual Description: The research should provide a comprehensive and detailed description of the socio-cultural context (field conditions) in which the data was collected.
• Data Analysis and Interpretation: The research should employ appropriate data analysis techniques that align with the research question and the nature of the data. The analysis should be transparent and clearly described, allowing readers to follow the process.
• Reflexivity and Transparency: The research should demonstrate reflexivity by acknowledging the researcher’s role, positionality, and potential biases in data collection and analysis.
• Contribution to the Field: The research should clearly articulate how the embeddedness of the research findings in data contributes to the field of Awareness-Based Systems Change.
• Adherence to Ethical Research Protocols: All research must adhere to the protocol for ethical research relevant to the context of the research (region, setting, population) and provide evidence of ethics clearance from a reputable institution at the time of submission.

Engaging with Indigenous and Place-Based Knowledge Systems
Submissions that draw on Indigenous or place-based knowledge traditions must demonstrate relational accountability. This includes: (a) evidence that the author(s) have situated themselves meaningfully within the relevant cultural or epistemic traditions, and/or (b) where theoretical representations of other knowledge systems are included, demonstrated engagement with scholarship recognized and accepted by the communities being represented. Authors are encouraged to articulate the protocols they have followed in engaging with knowledge holders and communities (see the linked commentary for additional guidance).

Originality Screening
JASC uses iThenticate via CrossRef Similarity Check to screen all submissions for originality. Similarity checks are conducted at two points: (1) upon submission receipt, before the manuscript is sent for review, and (2) after peer review, before final acceptance.