Peer Review Process

On this page

Review Process
Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening
Assignment to Peer Reviewers
Peer Review Evaluation Criteria
Peer Reviewer Feedback and Recommendations
Author Revisions and Resubmission
Editorial Decision Making
Post-Acceptance Editing and Production
Continuous Improvement and Feedback Loop
Complaints Policy
Appeals against editorial decisions

Review Process

The Journal of Business and Management Studies (JBMS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous and transparent peer review process. This process plays a pivotal role in ensuring the quality, credibility, and reliability of the research articles published in the journal.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening

Authors submit their manuscripts to JBMS through an online submission system. Upon receipt, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the submission aligns with the journal's scope and guidelines. This preliminary assessment involves checking for adherence to formatting requirements, ethical considerations, and basic suitability for the journal.

2. Assignment to Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to expert peer reviewers with relevant expertise in the field. JBMS follows a double-blind peer review model, ensuring both the anonymity of authors and reviewers, fostering unbiased evaluations.

3. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Peer reviewers assess manuscripts based on various criteria, including the significance of the research question, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, originality, and contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Reviewers also evaluate ethical considerations, ensuring research integrity and compliance with academic standards.

4. Peer Reviewer Feedback and Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed feedback to authors, offering constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. They may recommend acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection based on the manuscript's quality and alignment with the journal's standards. The peer review process is a collaborative dialogue between authors and reviewers, promoting scholarly discourse.

5. Author Revisions and Resubmission

Authors are given the opportunity to address reviewers' comments and revise their manuscripts accordingly. The revised submissions undergo a secondary review to ensure that the suggested changes have been appropriately incorporated. This iterative process continues until the manuscript meets the journal's standards for publication.

6. Editorial Decision Making

The editor-in-chief, in consultation with the editorial board, makes the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. This decision is based on the comprehensive evaluation provided by peer reviewers, considering the overall quality, significance, and contribution of the research.

7. Post-Acceptance Editing and Production

Upon acceptance, manuscripts undergo final editing and formatting to ensure consistency and adherence to the journal's style. The production team works closely with authors to finalize the publication-ready version before the article is published online.

8. Continuous Improvement and Feedback Loop

JBMS is committed to continuous improvement in its peer review process. Feedback from authors and reviewers is actively sought to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the review system, contributing to the overall quality of the journal's publications.

Complaints Policy

The journal strives to deal with and resolve all complaints as soon as possible. The procedures followed by the journal to handle and resolve complaints aim to be fair for authors filing complaints and for those being complained about.

Appeals against editorial decisions

In case an author would like to challenge an editorial decision, he or she should contact the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. After the appeal is made by the author, the Editor-in-Chief will review the manuscript, peer reviewers' comments and reach a decision for accepting or rejecting the manuscript. If required, the Editor-in-Chief may send the manuscript to new referees for peer review. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final in such cases. All submitted complaints will be acknowledged within two working days.