Review Process

International Journal of Business and Management (IJBM) – Peer Review Policy
ISSN Online: 2815-9330

Procedure
The International Journal of Business and Management (IJBM) uses a double-blind peer review process to ensure objective and high-quality evaluation of submissions. Review reports are advisory; neither the editorial board nor the Editor-in-Chief/Managing Editor engages in discussions with authors regarding review outcomes.

To preserve anonymity, authors must remove identifying information from their manuscripts, including names, institutional affiliations, contact details, and references to their own prior work.

Peer review is a critical mechanism for maintaining high academic standards. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated by two or more external expert reviewers. Editors may consult additional reviewers if necessary before making a final decision.

Authors are encouraged to suggest at least two potential reviewers during the submission process to support a timely and relevant evaluation.

Review Reports
Reviewers should provide professional, constructive, and balanced feedback, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. Reports should address the following:

  1. Originality and Contribution – The manuscript’s novelty, significance, and contribution to business, management, or interdisciplinary research.

  2. Relevance and Scope – Alignment with IJBM’s aims, scope, and topical importance.

  3. Theoretical and Practical Implications – Adequacy of literature review, clarity of conceptual foundations, and practical or policy relevance.

  4. Methodological Rigor – Appropriateness of research design, clarity of data collection and analysis methods, and reliability of findings.

  5. Clarity and Structure – Organization of the manuscript (Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) and overall clarity of writing.

  6. Ethical Standards – Compliance with ethical guidelines, including ethics committee approval, informed consent, and absence of plagiarism or data manipulation.

Timeline
The peer-review process is expected to take 3–7 weeks after submission. Delays may occur depending on reviewer availability, author response times to revisions, and multiple rounds of review.

Competing Interests
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial, professional, or personal relationships that could bias their evaluation. Reviewers with conflicts should alert the editors and refrain from reviewing the manuscript.

Confidentiality
All submission content, including abstracts, ideas, and data, is confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share or use the content for personal purposes. Both authors and reviewers should take care not to reveal their identities to maintain the integrity of the double-blind process.

Editorial Decision
After receiving review reports, the associate editor considers the reviewers’ feedback and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief/Managing Editor. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief/Managing Editor.

Authors receive a decision letter summarizing the reviews, overall assessment, and recommended actions. If revisions are required, authors may resubmit the corrected manuscript, which may undergo a second review by the original reviewers or a new reviewer at the discretion of the editorial board.

In cases of rejection, authors receive a detailed explanation of the decision.