Peer Review Process

JMSO: Journal of Management, Science, and Organization applies a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published articles. The journal adheres to internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing and best practices in peer review.

1. Type of Peer Review

JMSO implements a double-blind peer review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach is intended to ensure objectivity, impartiality, and fairness in the evaluation of manuscripts.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope
  • Compliance with author guidelines and submission requirements
  • Academic quality and clarity of presentation
  • Similarity and plagiarism check using plagiarism detection software

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic standards or fall outside the journal’s scope will be desk rejected without being sent for external review.

3. Peer Review by Independent Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge
  • Theoretical framework and literature review
  • Methodological rigor and research design
  • Data analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity, coherence, and academic writing quality
  • Practical, managerial, and policy implications

4. Review Timeline

The standard peer review process is conducted within 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. JMSO strives to provide timely and constructive feedback to authors.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors are expected to submit a revised version along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments within the specified timeframe.

6. Revision and Re-Review

Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the handling editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers to ensure that all comments and concerns have been adequately addressed.

7. Final Acceptance and Copyediting

Once a manuscript is accepted, it undergoes professional copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading to ensure consistency, clarity, and compliance with the journal’s formatting and citation standards.

8. Ethical Considerations

All participants in the peer review process—editors, reviewers, and authors—are required to adhere to the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, including confidentiality, objectivity, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.

9. Confidentiality and Transparency

All submitted manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewer comments are communicated to authors in an anonymized form. JMSO is committed to maintaining transparency, integrity, and accountability throughout the peer review process.