Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Management Research (IJMR) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication. Under this process, the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review procedure.

The peer-review process applies to original research articles, review papers, conceptual papers, case studies, short communications, and other scholarly submissions received by the journal.

Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript is initially examined by the editorial office to determine whether it:

  • Falls within the journal’s aim and scope
  • Follows the author guidelines and required format
  • Presents a clear and relevant research contribution
  • Meets basic standards of academic writing and research quality
  • Contains complete author declarations and supporting information
  • Complies with publication-ethics and originality requirements
  • Is suitable for external peer review

Manuscripts that are incomplete, outside the journal’s scope, poorly prepared, or unsuitable for publication may be returned to the authors or rejected without external review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

IJMR uses a double-blind review system in which:

  • Reviewers do not know the identities or affiliations of the authors
  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers
  • Review reports and reviewer information are treated as confidential
  • Authors must remove identifying details from the anonymized manuscript

Authors should avoid including names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying references, or document properties that may reveal their identity in the review version.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to qualified independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

  • Subject knowledge and research experience
  • Expertise related to the manuscript topic
  • Previous reviewing or publication experience
  • Independence from the authors and their institutions
  • Absence of personal, professional, academic, or financial conflicts of interest
  • Ability to provide a fair and timely evaluation

The editorial team makes the final decision regarding reviewer selection. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the journal is not required to use those suggestions.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Relevance to management, business, organizational studies, or related disciplines
  • Originality and significance of the research
  • Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and questions
  • Quality and relevance of the literature review
  • Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework
  • Suitability and transparency of the research methodology
  • Reliability of the data collection and analysis
  • Logical presentation and interpretation of results
  • Relationship between findings and existing literature
  • Strength of the discussion and conclusions
  • Practical, managerial, policy, or theoretical contribution
  • Quality of tables, figures, references, and supporting materials
  • Compliance with ethical and academic standards
  • Clarity, organization, and readability of the manuscript

Reviewers should provide constructive, respectful, evidence-based, and academically relevant comments.

Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Revise and resubmit with major revisions
  • Reject the manuscript

Reviewer recommendations assist the editor but do not automatically determine the final decision. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor or Editor-in-Chief after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and journal requirements.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • A revised version of the manuscript
  • A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers
  • A clear explanation of all changes made
  • Justification for any reviewer recommendation that has not been followed

Authors should highlight or track revisions where requested by the editorial office.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Editorial Decisions

The journal may issue the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal’s academic, ethical, and editorial requirements and may proceed to production.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited changes that do not substantially affect its research design, analysis, or main conclusions.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires significant improvement in areas such as theory, methodology, analysis, discussion, organization, or presentation.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript requires extensive redevelopment and may be considered as a new submission after substantial revision.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards, falls outside its scope, contains serious methodological or ethical concerns, or does not make a sufficient scholarly contribution.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals
  • Use unpublished information for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage
  • Discuss the manuscript outside the review process
  • Contact authors directly regarding the submission
  • Reveal reviewer identities or confidential editorial information

Reviewers must delete or securely dispose of manuscript files after completing the review, subject to the journal’s record-retention requirements.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect, or appear to affect, their objectivity.

Conflicts may include:

  • Recent collaboration with an author
  • Employment at the same institution
  • Personal or professional relationships
  • Academic competition
  • Financial interests
  • Supervisory or mentoring relationships
  • Direct involvement in the research under review

A reviewer or editor with a relevant conflict should withdraw from the evaluation process.

Research Ethics and Misconduct

Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify possible:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication
  • Fabrication or falsification of data
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Unethical research practices
  • Inappropriate authorship
  • Citation manipulation
  • Substantial similarity with another work
  • Misleading or unsupported claims

Suspected misconduct will be investigated according to the journal’s publication-ethics procedures. Reviewers should not investigate allegations independently or contact the authors directly.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. Manuscript content, unpublished data, or confidential author information must not be uploaded to publicly accessible artificial-intelligence systems or other external platforms where confidentiality, data protection, or intellectual-property rights cannot be guaranteed.

Any permitted use of automated tools must remain consistent with the journal’s confidentiality, integrity, and data-protection requirements. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and originality of their review reports.

Review of Editorial Team Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial-board members, or individuals associated with the journal will follow the same academic and ethical standards as other submissions.

Such manuscripts will be handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the author. The submitting editor or board member will not participate in reviewer selection or the final publication decision.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that:

  • A significant factual or procedural error occurred
  • Reviewer comments were based on a misunderstanding
  • A conflict of interest affected the review
  • The journal’s stated procedures were not followed

An appeal must provide clear academic reasons and supporting evidence. Disagreement with a decision alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal.

The Editor-in-Chief may review the manuscript, reviewer reports, and editorial process before issuing a final response.

Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective and constructive feedback
  • Evaluate the manuscript fairly and independently
  • Avoid offensive, personal, or discriminatory comments
  • Support major criticisms with clear reasoning
  • Respect intellectual property and confidentiality
  • Declare conflicts of interest promptly
  • Complete reviews within the agreed period
  • Recommend relevant references only when academically necessary

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own work or attempt to influence citations for personal benefit.

Final Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for publication decisions. Decisions are based on:

  • Academic quality
  • Originality and significance
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Methodological soundness
  • Ethical compliance
  • Reviewer recommendations
  • Clarity and scholarly contribution

Editorial decisions are not influenced by the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, financial status, or personal characteristics.

Policy Review

IJMR may periodically review and update this Peer Review Policy to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research ethics, editorial practice, and peer-review standards.