JAS invites original research articles, review articles, and critical commentaries that contribute to the following three primary scopes:

This scope focuses on the mechanisms through which local communities and indigenous peoples maintain authority over their knowledge and territories in the digital age.

• Application of CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) and OCAP principles in regional data governance.
• Development of Geofenced Sovereignty protocols to protect sacred knowledge and digital cultural assets.
• Decolonization of digital infrastructures (Cloud, AI, GIS) to support local epistemic authority.

This scope examines the ethical, legal, and social implications of Artificial Intelligence and automated systems within public administration and education.

• Auditing algorithmic bias in social services and educational settings using metrics like the Administrative Justice Ratio (AJR).
• Mitigating "Compliance-Minimisation" and ensuring substantive human oversight in the implementation of AI regulations (e.g., EU AI Act).
• AI’s impact on democratic values, fundamental rights, and the protection of vulnerable populations in diverse Asian-Pacific contexts.

This scope explores the use of spatial technologies and connectivity to empower regional ecosystems and revitalize cultural identity.

• Digital Orality: Using AR/VR and XR for language revitalization, preserving ancestral narratives, and fostering a "Sense of Place".
• Dual Investment Equilibrium (DIEM): Balancing physical ICT infrastructure with culturally and linguistically responsive digital content.

Resolving land-use conflicts and enhancing participatory planning through transparent spatial data visualization (e.g., Ruimtelijke Eerlijkheidsprotocol).

Any manuscript submitted through an online process and reviewed by a partner will determine whether the manuscript is loaded or not in this journal. The reviewer for each submitted manuscript is 2 persons and has the appropriate knowledge or expertise. The review process conducted for 3 weeks. The reviewer's review is done by considering the track record of research that has been published at the national and international level.

Review of the Manuscript Process: Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to make sure you have the expertise to review the article. Do not be afraid to say no to review the article if there is a good reason.
2. Read the information provided by the journal for review so that you will know: a) Type of manuscript (for example, review articles, technical notes, original research) and journal expectations / parameters for that type of manuscript; B) Other journal requirements that the manuscripts must fulfill (eg, length, citation style).
3. Know the scope and mission of the journal to ensure the topic of writing fits the scope.
4. Ready? Read the entire manuscript at first to see if it is worth publishing - just make some notes about the main issues if they exist: a) Is the question of interest audible and significant? B) Is the design and / or method used adequate or fatal defects? (For original research paper); C) Is the result large enough to be considered for publication (or only two or more variables are presented or the result is so flawed that the paper can not be published)?
5. What's the initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable only with small comments / questions: solid, interesting, and new; Voice methodology used; The results are well presented; Discussions are well formulated with Interpretations based on logical reasoning, etc., with only a few comments / questions, turning to reviewing immediately; B) Severe disability so you have to reject it: move directly to write a review; C) Mixed somewhere in the range of "revision and resend" to "received with big changes" or you are not sure whether to reject it or not: It may be a decent paper, but there are major issues that need to be resolved