🎉 Get free shipping every day by subscribing to our newsletter

Publish with us

Choosing to publish or peer-review with a Lighthouse journal means that you become a member of a community that will support you and provide you with the opportunity to share your research with a relevant global audience. This is to ensure that your research findings have the greatest possible impact, reach, and visibility.

All of our journals are overseen by dedicated Editors who are active in the communities they serve and are indexed in the world’s most prestigious scientific databases.

We value and trust our international peer reviewers who help us ensure that the research published in Lighthouse journals is of the highest possible quality.

You can learn everything you need to know about working as an author, editor, or reviewer for a Lighthouse journal here.

Becoming an Author

What can you expect if you publish in Lighthouse journals?

  • A straightforward and friendly publishing service
  • Immediate and free access to your article for anyone anywhere at any time in the world
  • Rigorous and constructive peer review
  • Fast publication
  • Extensive indexing and archiving of your work
  • Retention of the full copyright in your work

Peer review at Lighthouse

Lighthouse is dedicated to maintaining the integrity of peer review and adhering to the highest standards of review. After you submit your manuscript to a Lighthouse journal, it will be evaluated by an editor for suitability and then double blind peer reviewed by independent, anonymous referees in the field to determine the validity, significance, and originality of your work.

As an author, you should be aware of critical ethical issues such as authorship (each author listed on a journal article should have contributed significantly to the work reported) and plagiarism (make sure you avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism).

Article Processing Charge (APC)

Lighthouse and other open access publishers do not earn money from subscription sales. Rather than that, we make all of our articles freely available online.

All articles published in Lighthouse journals are open access and will incur an article processing charge (APC) upon acceptance. This fee covers the costs associated with converting a manuscript to a finished article, as well as the costs associated with hosting, distributing, and promoting an article.

The actual charge for article processing varies according to the journal in which an article is published. Certain journals charge a higher fee due to the high volume of submissions.

The following table summarises the article processing charges (APCs) that Lighthouse Open Access journals assess on accepted manuscripts. Taxes may be levied on certain transactions.

Journal title



International Journal of Educational Studies in Social Sciences (IJESSS)


€ 50 (euro)

Asian Journal of Health and Applied Sciences (AJHAS)


€ 50 (euro)

Asian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET)


€ 50 (euro)

Asian Journal of Economics and Business Management (AJEBM)


€ 50 (euro)

Becoming an Editor

Are you interested in becoming a Lighthouse journal editor? Or are you an existing Editor looking to add a colleague to your Editorial Board? We would be delighted to hear from you.

You can propose potential Academic Editors for Lighthouse journals or apply to become an Academic Editor at Lighthouse.

Academic Editors are responsible for overseeing the peer review process, which includes reviewing up to twenty papers each year, as well as serving as a spokesperson for the journal in the scientific community and at important conferences. All applications will be reviewed, and individuals who meet our criteria for each journal will be invited. Please note that your application will not be considered if you do not provide a Scopus ID.

Becoming a Reviewer

Applications to join our peer reviewer community are always welcome. On a manuscript-by-manuscript basis, our Academic Editors pick reviewers. They invite the most qualified scientists from their own network or from our list of suggestions in each occasion.

A reviewer report should contain much more than a few brief sentences and should provide a thorough assessment of the paper. Lighthouse does not require a certain report structure, although the following is a proposed format:

  • Summary
  • Major issues
  • Minor issues

Reviewers are encouraged to assist authors in improving their article. The report should provide authors with helpful feedback, particularly when improvements are suggested. If reviewers do not want authors to see particular comments, they can add them to the Academic Editor’s confidential comments.

While expectations differ by discipline, reviewers should pay attention to the following key elements:

  • Is it true that the research questions are valid?
  • Is the sample size large enough?
  • Is ethical approval and/or permission required, and was the research ethical?
  • Is the study design and procedures suitable for answering the research question?
  • Are there adequate controls in the experiments?
  • Is the method reporting, including any equipment and supplies, sufficiently thorough to allow the study to be replicated?
  • Are any of the statistical tests that were applied appropriate and reported correctly?
  • Are the graphs and tables clear and accurate representations of the results?
  • Has the authors’ and others’ past research been mentioned, and have the results been compared to the current findings?
  • Are there any citations that are not acceptable, such as those that do not support the argument or too many citations to the authors’ own articles?
  • Do the findings back up the conclusions?
  • Are the research’s limitations acknowledged?
  • Is the abstract a straight-forward overview of the research and findings?
  • Is the language clear and easy to comprehend?

Reviewer reports should be sent via the online journal submission system on or before the agreed-upon deadline to enable authors receive timely reviews. If a reviewer is unable to fulfil the deadline, they should contact Lighthouse to schedule a new date.

We require reviewers to concentrate their reports on objectively assessing the scientific parts of the submission, such as the methodology’s soundness and if the findings are backed up by the data. Uniqueness and the work’s potential influence may also be discussed. We ask reviewers to suggest one of the following actions at the conclusion of their review.

  • Publish as-is
  • Consider after Minor Changes
  • Consider after Major Changes
  • Reject: The manuscript has errors or is insufficiently novel.

It is critical to note, however, that the Academic Editor will ultimately make the final decision.