Open Access Policy

International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process is an Open Access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of Open Access

IJAHP Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy

 The articles published in the “International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process” (IJAHP), adheres to the highest standard of ethics of publication of scholarly research work. IJAHP publication ethics policy is guided by COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. It is necessary that all parties involved in publishing process: the authors and the editorial committee agree to abide by the highest standards of ethical behavior of research publication.

Duties of the Journal

Publication decisions

The editor in chief and associate editors are the ultimate responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted should be published. The decision is based on the recommendation of the associate editors and reviewers. IJAHP articles abide by legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor in chief confers with the editorial team, board at large and reviewers in making this decision. Moreover, for the publication of an article, a specific editor is assigned to coordinate the peer review process and provide a recommendation/decision on the article.


The editorial teams, board members and reviewers evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Furthermore, the peer review process is double-blind to ensure its fairness.


The editor in chief, associated editors, editorial board and reviewers must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and editorial team, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by any of the editorial team, board members and reviewers in their own research.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

IJAHP uses a double-blind review process. The reviewers advise the assigned editor(s) in making the editorial decision. IJAHP editors communicates with authors, as required, and helps them in improving quality of their research paper.


IJAHP editors are committed to provide timely review to the authors. If a reviewer does not submit his/her report in a timely manner, the paper is immediately sent to another qualified reviewer.


Manuscript content is treated with at most confidentiality. IJAHP uses a double blind process. Except for the journal editorial team, editorial board at large and reviewers, they cannot discuss submitted papers with any other person, including the authors.

 Standards of Objectivity

The reviewers are required to evaluate papers based on the content. The review comment must be respectful of authors. The reviewers are required to justify their decision and recommendation.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work wherever possible. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide such data within reasonable time.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. IJAHP uses special software to check plagiarism. Papers found with such problems are automatically rejected and authors are so advised.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

When a paper is submitted for possible publication, the submitting author makes a written statement that the paper has not been published not it is currently under publication with any other journal. Simultaneous submission is considered unethical and is therefore unacceptable. 

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others is required. Authors must cite publications that have led to the authors’ current research.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the research reported in the manuscript. The corresponding author has a responsibility to keep co-authors posted with the review process. If accepted, all authors are required to give a signed statement that the research work is their original research work.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Peer Review Policy, Process, and Guidance

All research articles published in IJAHP undergo peer review. This involves evaluation and approval  by three (at least two) independent expert reviewers.

Peer Review Policy

All submissions are initially reviewed for completeness and then assessed by an Editor to determine their suitability for peer review. If the Editor has a conflict of interest or is listed as an author, another Editorial Board member will oversee the review process. Editors consider peer review reports when making decisions but are not bound by them, since they need to take into account the detail and quality of the reviews. A single fundamental concern raised by a reviewer, or the Editor, may lead to rejection. So, the process is not a simple reviewers’ opinion majority. Authors receive the peer review reports along with the editorial decision.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are crucial in scientific publishing, guiding editorial decisions and ensuring research validity. Reviewers are selected for their irreplaceable expertise. Despite advancements in AI, these tools have limitations, such as outdated knowledge and the potential to produce inaccurate information. Manuscripts often contain sensitive information unsuitable for AI tools. Thus, while IJAHP explores safe AI tools, reviewers are asked not to use AI for manuscript evaluation. If AI is used, reviewers must declare it transparently in their reports.

Peer Reviewer Selection

Selecting peer reviewers is critical and based on expertise, reputation, recommendations, conflict of interest, and previous performance. Desired qualities include speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning, and collegiality.

Editor Responsibilities

Editors should:

- Obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for primary research manuscripts.

- Make decisions based on detailed peer review reports.

- Verify the contact details of suggested reviewers.

- Use institutional email addresses for reviewer invitations.

- Ensure at least one reviewer was not suggested by the author.

- Independently review non-primary research manuscripts or seek additional expert opinions.

In exceptional cases, if two independent reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or decide based on a single detailed report.

Peer Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers must inform the Editor of any conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Communications between Editors and reviewers are confidential. Authors can suggest potential reviewers but cannot recommend recent collaborators or colleagues from the same institution. Suggested reviewers should have verifiable identities and expertise.

Peer Reviewer Diversity

IJAHP is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Editors should strive for diverse representation among peer reviewers, considering geographical, gender, and racial/ethnic diversity.

Peer Reviewer Misconduct

Providing false or misleading information, such as identity theft or suggesting fake reviewers, will lead to manuscript rejection and further investigation. IJAHP adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) standards.


Peer Review Models

IJAHP employs a double-anonymized peer review process, where the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed. The pre-publication history of articles is not available online.


 Peer Reviewer Guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the Editor with information to make an evidence-based decision. Review reports should help authors revise their manuscripts. Reviewers should:

- Summarize key results and identify outstanding features.

- Evaluate validity, originality, significance, data quality, methodology, and statistical treatment.

- Suggest improvements and assess the appropriateness of references.

- Ensure clarity and context in abstracts, introductions, and conclusions.

- Declare any competing interests and respect confidentiality.

- Avoid personal criticism and defamatory remarks.

- Contact the journal if they wish to pass a review invitation to a colleague.


Peer Reviewer Recognition

IJAHP recognizes the invaluable service of peer reviewers by offering the opportunity to credit their ORCID profiles with verified peer review data directly from the submission system.

By following these guidelines, IJAHP aims to maintain a rigorous, fair, and efficient peer review process that upholds the integrity of scientific publishing.

Allegations of Misconduct

Our journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all allegations of misconduct seriously. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, and unethical research practices.

1. Initial Assessment: Upon receiving an allegation, the editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine if the claim has merit.
2. Investigation: If the allegation is credible, a thorough investigation will be conducted. This may involve consulting with the authors, reviewers, and relevant institutions.
3. Outcome: Based on the investigation, appropriate actions will be taken. These can range from correcting the published record to retraction of the article. All findings and actions will be documented.
4. Notification: All parties involved will be informed of the investigation's outcome.

Appeals Process

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe their manuscript was rejected unfairly or if there was a misunderstanding in the review process.

1. Submission of Appeal: Authors must submit a written appeal, explaining in detail the grounds for the appeal and send it by e-mail to the editor in chief.
2. Review of Appeal: The appeal will be reviewed by a different editor or an independent reviewer not involved in the original decision.
3. Final Decision: The final decision will be communicated to the author after careful consideration of the appeal. This decision is final and binding.

Complaints Process

We strive to ensure that all complaints are handled fairly, promptly, and transparently. Complaints can be related to the journal's editorial process, ethics, or other aspects of publication.

1. Submission of Complaint: Complaints must be submitted in writing, clearly stating the issue and providing relevant details.
2. Acknowledgment: Upon receipt, the complaint will be acknowledged, and an estimated timeframe for resolution will be provided.
3. Investigation: The complaint will be investigated by the editorial team or an appointed independent party.
4. Resolution: After the investigation, appropriate actions will be taken to resolve the issue. The complainant will be informed of the outcome and any corrective measures implemented.