Peer Review Policy and Editorial Procedure

Planning Malaysia uses double-anonymous peer review for original research articles, case studies, conceptual/theoretical articles, policy/practice articles, evidence-synthesis reviews, brief reports and technical notes. Reviewers do not receive author identities, and authors do not receive reviewer identities. Editors and authorised editorial staff can access identities for workflow administration and conflict management and must preserve confidentiality.

7.1 Content subject to peer review

Peer-reviewed article types are evaluated by at least two independent external experts. Supplementary material that supports the article's claims is normally included in the review. Editorials, publisher notices, corrections, retractions, obituaries and invited book/software reviews may be assessed internally rather than externally; the published item will state its review status. No exception may be presented as externally peer reviewed when it was not.

7.2 Step-by-step editorial process

1. Submission and acknowledgement: OJS records the submission date and issues a manuscript ID. The editorial office checks that required files and declarations are complete.
2. Technical and integrity screening: Staff check format, metadata, anonymisation, authorship information, conflicts, funding, ethics/consent, data statement, AI declaration, permissions and relevant text overlap. A similarity report is interpreted by an editor, not by a fixed percentage.
3. Editorial suitability assessment: The Editor-in-Chief or a conflict-free Section Editor assesses scope, originality, contribution, methodological adequacy, ethical acceptability, clarity and compliance. A manuscript may be desk rejected with a concise reason or returned for pre-review correction.
4. Editor assignment and conflict check: A handling editor with appropriate expertise is assigned. Editors must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves. Submissions by an editor, board member, publisher representative or close colleague are handled by an independent editor who has no reporting relationship to the author.
5. Reviewer selection and verification: The handling editor invites at least two independent subject and/or methods experts. Reviewer expertise and identity are verified using institutional information, ORCID, publication records or other reliable sources. Reviewers should not normally be from the same institution as any author or have a recent collaboration, supervisory, close personal, financial or competitive conflict.
6. Reviewer invitation: The invitation provides the title/abstract, review model, confidentiality and conflict requirements, review deadline and links to the reviewer instructions. Reviewers must accept the ethical conditions before accessing the full manuscript.
7. Independent review: Reviewers evaluate scholarly merit, methods, evidence, ethics, transparency, clarity and citation integrity. They provide comments to the authors, confidential comments to the editor where needed, and a recommendation. Reviews must be constructive, evidence based and respectful.
8. Editorial assessment of reports: The handling editor evaluates the reasoning and quality of the reports rather than counting votes. Abusive, conflicted, superficial or metric-manipulating comments are disregarded and may prompt replacement of a reviewer.
9. Conflicting or inadequate reports: Where reports materially conflict or do not provide a sufficient basis for decision, the editor may seek a third independent review, request clarification or adjudicate with a senior conflict-free editor.
10. Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or authorised handling editor makes the decision based on the manuscript, reports, ethical requirements and journal scope. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Decisions are not based on author status, nationality, institutional prestige, predicted citations, ability to pay or whether the article cites Planning Malaysia.
11. Revision: Authors submit a clean revised manuscript, a marked version and a point-by-point response. Major revisions may return to the original reviewers; minor revisions may be checked by the editor. A revision invitation is not a guarantee of acceptance.
12. Final checks and acceptance: Before acceptance, the editorial office verifies declarations, references, permissions, data statement, contributor roles, author identities and final integrity concerns. Acceptance is issued only by an authorised editor.
13. Production and proof: After acceptance and any applicable APC process, the article is copyedited, typeset and proofed. Authors may correct production errors but may not introduce unreviewed substantive changes without editorial approval.
14. Publication and metadata: The version of record includes DOI, publication date, received/revised/accepted dates, author affiliations, funding, conflicts, contributor roles, data statement, ethics information, licence and correction links where applicable.

7.3 Decision categories

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication subject only to production corrections.
• Minor revision: Limited changes are needed and can normally be assessed by the editor; acceptance is not automatic.
• Major revision: Substantial changes or additional analysis are required. The revised manuscript may be re-reviewed and can still be rejected.
• Reject and invite a new submission: The current manuscript cannot be accepted through ordinary revision, but a substantially redesigned study may be submitted as a new manuscript and will receive a new assessment.
• Reject: The manuscript is outside scope, lacks sufficient contribution or rigour, has unresolvable ethical/integrity concerns, or cannot reasonably be made suitable.

7.4 Target timeframes

The journal aims to complete the initial editorial assessment within 10 working days and to issue the first decision after external review within 8-12 weeks. Reviewers are normally asked to submit reports within 21 days. Authors are normally allowed 14 days for minor revision and 30 days for major revision, with reasonable extensions available on request. These are targets, not guarantees. If delay is substantial, the editorial office will inform the authors and allow them to withdraw if they prefer.

7.5 Confidentiality and use of AI in peer review

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer identities, reports and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share or use unpublished information for personal advantage. They must not upload manuscripts or review content to public or unauthorised generative-AI services, because this may breach confidentiality, privacy and author rights. Any journal-approved secure AI-assisted tool must be governed by a written policy, human oversight and disclosure; AI must never make the final editorial decision.

7.6 Reviewer suggestions and peer-review manipulation

Author-suggested reviewers are optional and are independently verified. The journal will not use reviewer contact information that cannot be authenticated. Fabricated identities, fake reviews, undisclosed third-party involvement, review rings and attempts to influence reviewers are treated as serious misconduct. The journal may suspend review, reject the manuscript, contact institutions or funders, correct or retract published work, and restrict future submissions following due process.

7.7 Editorial conflicts and board-member submissions

Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts where impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Manuscripts authored by editorial-team or board members receive no preferential treatment and are handled by an independent editor with external reviewers. The author-editor has no access to reviewer selection, reports or decision deliberations beyond the normal author view. The published article should disclose the independent handling arrangement.

7.8 Special issues and conference collections

Special issues, supplements and conference collections must meet the same scope, ethics, peer-review and acceptance standards as regular issues. The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight and final responsibility. Guest editors must declare conflicts, follow journal procedures, and may not make decisions on their own papers or those of close collaborators. The journal must verify that review occurred before accepting conference-derived material and must not permit sponsors or organisers to control scholarly decisions.

7.9 Appeals and complaints

Authors may appeal a rejection within 30 calendar days where they identify a material factual error, procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict or serious misunderstanding. An appeal is not a request for a new opinion merely because the authors disagree. It must be concise and evidence based. A senior editor who was not responsible for the original decision will review the appeal, obtain advice if necessary and issue the journal's final decision. Normally only one appeal is considered per manuscript.

Complaints about editorial conduct, reviewer behaviour, confidentiality, discrimination, delay or policy compliance may be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. A complaint concerning the Editor-in-Chief will be handled by a designated publisher representative or independent ethics officer. The complainant will receive acknowledgement, a fair review and an outcome, subject to confidentiality and legal limits.