About the Journal

Asian Journal of Economic Development and Policy Studies (AJEDP) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to advancing rigorous, policy-relevant research on economic development and public policy. The journal prioritizes work that strengthens evidence-based decision-making and institutional learning, with a primary emphasis on Asian economies while welcoming comparative studies involving emerging markets and development contexts globally.

AJEDP publishes research that clarifies the mechanisms, trade-offs, and implementation realities of development policy. Submissions are expected to demonstrate conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and explicit implications for policy, governance, and development practice. The journal welcomes quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs, including econometric and panel approaches, causal inference designs (where appropriate), comparative policy analysis, institutional analysis, and systematic or scoping reviews.

AJEDP explicitly welcomes cross-country and panel-data development analytics using reputable public datasets (e.g., the World Bank World Development Indicators), including ASEAN-focused and wider Asian comparative studies. Such work may examine development convergence/divergence, macro-financial stability, structural transformation, institutional quality, and SDG-related development outcomes, provided that the analysis is framed as economic development and/or policy-relevant evidence rather than purely descriptive reporting.

Thematic coverage includes, but is not limited to:

  • Macroeconomic development, growth dynamics, structural transformation, and productivity

  • Poverty, inequality, social protection, and inclusive development strategies

  • Labor markets, employment policy, human capital, and demographic transitions

  • Public finance, fiscal policy, taxation, and expenditure effectiveness

  • Governance, institutions, regulatory quality, and public-sector performance

  • Industrial policy, innovation ecosystems, SME development, and competitiveness

  • Trade, regional integration, investment policy, development finance, and capital flows

  • Sustainable development, climate and environmental policy, energy transitions, and resilience

  • Food systems, agriculture and rural development, and supply-side development constraints

  • Urbanization, infrastructure, logistics, and spatial development policy

  • Health, education, and social sector policy evaluations with economic-development relevance

  • Cross-country indicator analytics (WDI/SDG), ASEAN integration, and comparative development performance

AJEDP considers original research articles, policy evaluation studies, systematic reviews, and policy notes that are analytically grounded and evidence-based. The journal may also consider structured country, sector, or program case studies when these yield transferable insights and policy lessons beyond a single setting.

AJEDP encourages submissions that connect development outcomes to policy design, implementation constraints, and institutional capacity, and that articulate clearly how findings inform public decision-making, inclusive growth, and sustainable development strategies across diverse national and regional settings.

 

Peer Review Process
AJEDP applies a rigorous peer review process designed to ensure scholarly quality, methodological soundness, and policy relevance.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening. Submissions are assessed for fit with the journal’s scope, completeness of required elements, compliance with ethical standards, and minimum scholarly quality. Manuscripts that are out of scope or do not meet baseline standards may be declined at this stage.

  2. Double-Blind Peer Review. Manuscripts that pass screening proceed to double-blind peer review, in which author and reviewer identities are concealed. Typically, two independent reviewers are invited based on topical and methodological expertise.

  3. Editorial Decision. Based on reviewer reports, the Editor may issue a decision of Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject. When reviewer recommendations diverge substantially, an additional review may be requested.

  4. Revision and Verification. Revised submissions should include a point-by-point response to reviewer comments and a clearly marked revised manuscript. The Editor may verify revisions directly or return the manuscript to reviewers when substantial changes are required.

  5. Final Acceptance and Production. Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout, and proofing prior to publication.

AJEDP is committed to timely, constructive, and unbiased review. Reviewers are expected to disclose conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality of all manuscripts and associated materials.

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
AJEDP is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal expects all parties involved in publishing—authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers—to uphold ethical responsibilities consistent with recognized good practice in scholarly publishing (e.g., COPE-aligned principles).

1) Editorial Responsibilities

  • Fair and evidence-based decisions. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope, without discrimination.

  • Confidentiality. Editors and editorial staff treat all submissions as confidential and disclose information only to those directly involved in editorial and production processes.

  • Conflicts of interest. Editors will recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a competing interest exists and will reassign the manuscript to an independent editor.

2) Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

  • Objectivity and constructiveness. Reviews should be objective, respectful, and focused on improving scholarly quality and policy relevance.

  • Competing interests. Reviewers must disclose potential competing interests and decline review where impartiality is compromised.

  • Integrity concerns. Reviewers should alert the editor to suspected ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or inconsistent results, undisclosed conflicts).

3) Author Responsibilities

  • Originality and proper attribution. Submissions must be original and properly cite relevant sources. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable.

  • Redundant or duplicate publication. Manuscripts should not be under consideration elsewhere, nor should they substantially duplicate previously published work without clear justification and transparent disclosure.

  • Accurate reporting and transparency. Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed and provide sufficient methodological detail to allow understanding and evaluation. Where applicable, authors should retain relevant data and be prepared to provide supporting materials if requested for verification.

  • Authorship integrity. Authorship should reflect substantial scholarly contribution to the study (conceptualization, design, analysis, writing, and/or critical revision). All authors must approve the final version and agree to submission. Guest, gift, or ghost authorship is not acceptable.

  • Disclosure of competing interests. Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial competing interests and specify sources of funding and the role of any funder.

  • Ethical compliance. Research involving human participants, sensitive data, or institutional contexts should comply with applicable ethical standards and permissions (e.g., ethics review, informed consent, and data privacy protections where relevant).

  • Use of AI-assisted tools. If AI-assisted tools are used (e.g., for language refinement, coding support, or preliminary analysis), authors must ensure full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the content. AI tools must not be listed as authors. Any material use that affects the manuscript’s content should be disclosed in an appropriate note (e.g., Methods or Acknowledgments) where relevant.

4) Handling Allegations of Misconduct
AJEDP takes allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously. Concerns may result in editorial inquiry, requests for clarification or supporting evidence, and consultation with relevant parties. Where misconduct is substantiated, the journal may take appropriate actions, including rejection, publication of corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern, and notification to authors’ institutions when warranted.

5) Corrections, Retractions, and Updates
If a significant error or integrity concern is identified after publication, AJEDP will consider issuing a correction, retraction, or other notice to preserve the accuracy of the scholarly record.

6) Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit reasoned appeals to editorial decisions. Complaints regarding editorial process, review conduct, or publication ethics will be reviewed by the editorial leadership and handled in a fair and documented manner.