PEER REVIEW POLICY

The journal adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review process designed to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, research quality, and transparency in scholarly publishing.

Review Process

1. Initial Screening

• All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation by the editorial board to determine alignment with the journal’s scope, ethical compliance, and adherence to submission guidelines.
• Submissions with a Similarity Index greater than 10% or those lacking formatting and citation compliance may be desk rejected without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

• Eligible manuscripts are sent to at least two anonymous subject matter experts for evaluation.
• In the double-blind process, both reviewer and author identities are concealed to ensure impartiality and mitigate bias.

3. Reviewer Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following quality metrics:

• Originality: Contribution to knowledge in business, management, or psychology.
• Methodological rigor: Clarity and appropriateness of design, analysis, and theory integration.
• Clarity and organization: Logical flow, coherence, and formatting.
• Academic writing quality: Grammar, tone, style, and readability.
• Ethical integrity: Compliance with ethical standards and responsible research practices.
• Managerial and theoretical relevance: Practical significance and alignment with emerging literature.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer feedback, the editorial board may take one of the following actions:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with or without minor revisions.
• Minor/Major Revisions: Authors are invited to revise and resubmit addressing specific concerns.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic or methodological standards.

5. Revision Process

• Authors must provide a point-by-point response outlining changes made in response to reviewer comments.
• Manuscripts requiring major revision may be re-reviewed before final decision.
• The Editor-in-Chief holds the final authority for publication decisions based on reviewer input.

6. Publication Ethics

• The journal complies with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines on publication practices and misconduct management.
• Suspected cases of plagiarism, falsification, duplicate submission, or ethical violations are handled in accordance with industry best practices and may result in rejection or retraction.

Review Timelines

• Initial Editorial Screening: Within 7 working days of submission
• Double-Blind Review: Typically completed within 4–6 weeks
• Final Decision & Communication: Within 8–10 weeks from submission date

The journal acknowledges the valuable contributions of peer reviewers and may publicly recognize their efforts through certificates, listings, or acknowledgements in print and digital formats.