Asia Book Registry (ABR) does not peer review book content. Instead, ABR conducts a rigorous editorial screening to verify that every indexed book meets our bibliographic, scholarly, and ethical standards — and that publisher-conducted peer review is properly attested.
ABR indexes books that have already been published. Our review evaluates the work's eligibility for indexing — not its scientific content.
| ▶ DOAB Aligned | ▶ Anti-Predatory Standards | ▶ Publisher Attestation Required |
| ABR Editorial Screening | Publisher Peer Review | |
|---|---|---|
| Who conducts it | ABR Editorial Team | The book's publisher, using independent expert reviewers |
| What is reviewed | Eligibility for indexing: metadata completeness, publisher credibility, ethics compliance, absence of predatory indicators | Scientific/scholarly quality of the book's content: methodology, originality, arguments, conclusions |
| When it happens | After the book is published — at the point of registry submission | Before publication — conducted by the publisher prior to the book being released |
| Outcome | Approved for indexing / Returned for metadata correction / Rejected from registry | Accepted / Accepted with revisions / Rejected for publication |
All of the following criteria must be satisfied for a book to be accepted into Asia Book Registry. A submission that fails any mandatory criterion will be returned to the author with an explanation. No exceptions are made.
|
Valid ISBN
Required ★
A valid ISBN-13 (or ISBN-10 for pre-2007 publications) issued by an official ISBN agency. The ISBN must be verifiable in the International ISBN Agency database. Both print and digital ISBNs are accepted. |
Published Book
Required ★
The work must be a complete, published book — including monographs, edited volumes, textbooks, and scholarly references. Manuscripts, working papers, theses, and book chapters submitted individually are not eligible. |
Scholarly Nature
Required ★
The book must be scholarly or academic in nature: grounded in research or evidence, written for an academic or professional audience, and containing citations or a bibliography. Popular science, self-help, and fiction are not eligible. |
|
Identified Author(s)
Required ★
At least one named human author or editor must be identified. Anonymous or pseudonymous works are not eligible. Author affiliation is strongly recommended. AI systems may not be listed as author or editor per COPE 2023. |
Complete Metadata
Required ★
Title, author(s)/editor(s), publisher name, place of publication, year, ISBN, language, and subject classification (minimum DDC/UDC) must all be provided and verifiable. An abstract of at least 100 words is required. |
Ethics Compliance
Required ★
The submission must be accompanied by signed ethics declarations — authorship, originality, AI usage, and conflict of interest. Works involving human subjects must provide evidence of ethics committee approval (KEPK, IRB, or equivalent). |
These criteria are not mandatory but significantly strengthen a submission. Books that meet more preferred criteria receive higher metadata enrichment, better discoverability scores, and are prioritized for expedited review. Meeting these criteria is also required for forward compatibility with DOAB and Scopus Books indexing.
| Preferred Criterion | Why It Matters | DOAB Required? |
|---|---|---|
| Publisher peer review attestation | Confirms scientific quality of the content; required for DOAB and strongly preferred for high-visibility indexing | YES |
| DOI (Digital Object Identifier) | Enables persistent citation linking; CrossRef DOI preferred. Increases discoverability in Google Scholar and Scopus | Recommended |
| ORCID iD for all authors | Disambiguates authorship; required for Scopus Books. Enables correct attribution across databases and citation metrics | Recommended |
| Open access with CC license | Required for DOAB listing. Maximizes full-text discoverability. CC BY 4.0 is the most interoperable license for metadata propagation | YES |
| Full-text URL or repository link | Links the registry record to the full text, dramatically increasing citation and download rates | Recommended |
| Keywords (5–10 terms) | Improves indexing precision; MeSH, AGROVOC, or domain-specific controlled vocabulary preferred where applicable | Optional |
| Table of contents | Enables chapter-level indexing and search; greatly improves discoverability for multi-chapter scholarly volumes | Optional |
| Credentialed publisher | Publisher listed in a recognized database (e.g., Qualitas publisher list, national ISBN agency records, university press registry) | YES |
Every submission goes through a structured editorial screening before it is accepted into the registry. The process is transparent, documented, and designed to be completed within 7–14 working days of a complete submission.
|
1
|
Completeness Check (Day 1–2)
System and editorial verification that all mandatory fields are present: ISBN, title, author(s), publisher, year, abstract, and signed declarations. Incomplete submissions are returned within 2 working days with a checklist of what is missing. |
|
2
|
ISBN Verification (Day 2–3)
The ISBN is validated against the International ISBN Agency database and the national ISBN agency of the country of publication (e.g., Perpustakaan Nasional RI for Indonesian books). The ISBN must match the submitted bibliographic data. |
|
3
|
Publisher Credibility Assessment (Day 3–5)
The publisher is assessed against known predatory publisher lists (Beall's List indicators, Think.Check.Submit criteria, DOAB publisher criteria) and positively verified against credentialed publisher registries where available. University presses and known institutional publishers are fast-tracked. |
|
4
|
Scholarly Scope & Originality Review (Day 4–7)
The editorial team reviews the abstract, keywords, table of contents, and any available sample content to confirm the book falls within ABR's scholarly scope, is not a duplicate of an already-indexed work, and meets minimum standards of scholarly presentation (citations, bibliography, academic language). |
|
5
|
Ethics & Declaration Review (Day 5–8)
All submitted declarations (authorship, originality, AI usage, COI, and peer review attestation) are reviewed for completeness and consistency. Submissions involving human subjects are checked for evidence of ethics approval. Any inconsistency triggers a query to the submitting author. |
|
6
|
Editorial Decision & Indexing (Day 7–14)
The handling editor issues one of three decisions: Accept (proceed to indexing), Return for correction (minor metadata issues to fix before indexing), or Reject (does not meet mandatory criteria). Authors are notified by email with a detailed explanation. |
ABR will not index books from publishers exhibiting predatory characteristics. The following red flags are used as grounds for rejection, consistent with Think.Check.Submit and COPE guidance on predatory publishing.
|
Publisher Red Flags
|
Book-Level Red Flags
|
Zero tolerance: Any confirmed predatory publishing indicator results in immediate rejection. The publisher is flagged in the ABR editorial system and future submissions from that publisher undergo enhanced scrutiny. Repeated or egregious predatory publishing behavior is reported to relevant authorities.
ABR requires authors to attest that their book has undergone a credible peer review process conducted by the publisher prior to publication. This attestation is modeled on the approach used by the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) and is a key signal of scholarly quality for downstream indexing services.
The following peer review types are accepted as valid attestations. The type must be declared in the submission form.
|
● External Peer Review
Review by two or more independent experts external to the author's institution, commissioned by the publisher. The gold standard — required for DOAB. |
● Editorial Board Review
Formal review by the publisher's editorial board, where board members are independent academic experts. Accepted when documented and verifiable. |
● Series Editor Review
Review by an independent series editor who is not an author of the work, with documented evaluation criteria. Common in university press book series. |
Not accepted as peer review: Author self-review, review conducted solely by the submitting author's colleagues at the same institution without publisher involvement, automated AI review, or editorial reading without structured evaluation criteria. Self-published works with no external review process do not qualify for peer review attestation.
Include the appropriate template in your submission's declarations section. For works that did not undergo formal peer review by the publisher, use Template C.
|
A
External Peer Review — Full Attestation
This book underwent formal external peer review prior to publication. The publisher, [Publisher Name], commissioned review by [number] independent expert reviewers external to the authors' institutions. The review process followed the publisher's established peer review guidelines. Review reports were provided to the author(s) and revisions were incorporated before final acceptance. Evidence of peer review is available upon request from the publisher.
|
|
B
Editorial Board / Series Editor Review
This book was reviewed by the [Editorial Board of Publisher Name / Series Editor of Series Name] prior to publication. The [board/series editor] comprises independent academic experts in [relevant field(s)]. The review evaluated the manuscript for scholarly merit, originality, and contribution to the field. The authors declare that the reviewers had no conflict of interest with the authors or their institution.
|
|
C
No Formal Publisher Peer Review
This book was not subject to formal external peer review by the publisher prior to publication. It has been indexed in ABR based on its bibliographic completeness and scholarly nature. This declaration is made transparently in the registry record. The author(s) acknowledge that this book may not meet peer review requirements for indexing in databases that mandate publisher peer review, such as DOAB.
Note: Books submitted with Template C are accepted into ABR but are clearly marked in the registry as "Publisher peer review: Not attested." This is transparent information for readers, librarians, and indexers — not a rejection. |
Grounds for Rejection
|
Appeals ProcessAuthors who believe their submission was incorrectly rejected may submit a formal appeal within 30 calendar days of the rejection notice. Appeals must:
Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor not involved in the original decision. The appeal outcome is final. Resubmission without new information does not constitute an appeal. |
Standards & ReferencesDOAB Criteria for Open Access Books (2023) · Think.Check.Submit Publisher Checklist · COPE Guidelines on Predatory Publishing · ICMJE Recommendations on Peer Review · International ISBN Agency Standards · SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher Registry · Perpustakaan Nasional RI — ISBN Indonesia |
Policy Details
|
Asia Book Registry
bookregistry.asia
Editorial Policies
Publication Ethics Editorial Review & Indexing Criteria Conflict of Interest Policy Corrections & Retraction Policy Allegations of Misconduct Repository Policy Generative AI Policy Processing ChargesRegistry Details
bookregistry.asia
The international platform for registering, indexing, and digitalizing scholarly books published across Indonesia and Asia — making print scholarship discoverable, citable, and globally accessible.
Navigate
→About Asia Book Registry →Author Guidelines →Publication Ethics →Review & Indexing →Generative AI Policy →Misconduct Policy →Privacy Statement →Register a Book →Contact UsSubject Coverage
Asia Book Registry indexes books across all academic disciplines, including Health Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Law, Education, and Economics.
Contact & Office
Explorer Frontier
explorerfrontier.com
Powered By
