Review Policy

Review Policy for JOURNAL STRATEGIC AND INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT

 

The JOURNAL STRATEGIC AND INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT is committed to publishing high-quality, impactful research. To ensure the scholarly rigor and integrity of our publications, we implement a meticulous double-blind peer review process. This policy outlines the principles and procedures guiding our review process.

 

1. Peer Review Philosophy

 

Our primary goal is to provide authors with constructive and timely feedback to improve the quality of their manuscripts. The peer review process helps maintain the standards of scientific inquiry, prevents the publication of unsound research, and ensures that published work is original, significant, and clearly presented.

 

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

 

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system. This means:

  • Anonymity of Authors to Reviewers: The identities of the authors (and their affiliations) are concealed from the reviewers. All identifying information is removed from the manuscript before it is sent for review.

  • Anonymity of Reviewers to Authors: The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Review reports are transmitted to authors without revealing the reviewers' names.

This double-blind approach minimizes potential bias and encourages objective evaluation of the manuscript's content based solely on its academic merit.

 

3. Review Process Steps

 

  1. Initial Submission: Authors submit their manuscript through the journal's online submission system.

  2. Editorial Office Assessment:

    • The Editorial Office conducts an initial check to ensure the manuscript adheres to the journal's scope and focus, follows submission guidelines, and meets basic quality standards.

    • A plagiarism check is performed using specialized software (as per our Plagiarism Screening Policy). Manuscripts failing this initial screening or deemed outside the journal's scope may be desk-rejected without further review.

  3. Editor-in-Chief (EiC) / Associate Editor (AE) Assignment: If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, the EiC assigns it to an appropriate Associate Editor based on their expertise.

  4. Reviewer Invitation: The assigned Associate Editor identifies and invites at least two qualified external reviewers who possess expertise in the manuscript's subject matter. Reviewers are given a specific timeframe (e.g., 3-4 weeks) to complete their review.

  5. Peer Review: Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as:

    • Originality and Contribution: Does the research offer new insights or knowledge?

    • Theoretical Foundation: Is the theoretical framework robust and relevant?

    • Methodology: Are the research design, data collection, and analysis methods appropriate and rigorously applied?

    • Results and Discussion: Are the findings clearly presented, well-supported by evidence, and adequately discussed in relation to existing literature?

    • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-written, logical, and easy to understand?

    • Ethical Considerations: Are ethical guidelines adhered to (e.g., informed consent, data privacy)?

    • Practical Implications: Does the research offer relevant insights for practitioners or policymakers?

  6. Reviewer Recommendation: Each reviewer provides a recommendation to the Associate Editor:

    • Accept (rare for first submission)

    • Minor Revisions

    • Major Revisions

    • Reject

  7. Editorial Decision:

    • The Associate Editor considers all reviewer feedback, their own assessment, and makes a recommendation to the EiC.

    • The EiC makes the final decision, which is then communicated to the authors along with the anonymized reviewer reports and detailed feedback.

    • Possible decisions include: Accept with Minor Revisions, Accept with Major Revisions, Reject and Resubmit, or Reject.

  8. Revisions and Resubmission: If revisions are requested, authors are given a timeframe to revise their manuscript based on the feedback. Revised manuscripts typically undergo a second round of review (either by the original reviewers or new ones, at the editor's discretion).

  9. Final Acceptance and Publication: Once the manuscript meets the required standards, it is formally accepted for publication and proceeds to copyediting and production.

 

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

 

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality of the journal. They are expected to:

  • Be Objective: Evaluate the manuscript fairly and without bias.

  • Maintain Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a confidential document and not disclose any information about it to third parties.

  • Be Timely: Submit their review within the agreed-upon deadline.

  • Provide Constructive Feedback: Offer detailed, specific, and actionable comments to help authors improve their work.

  • Declare Conflicts of Interest: Inform the editor of any potential conflicts of interest that might affect their objectivity.

 

5. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

 

Reviewers must adhere to ethical guidelines, including but not limited to:

  • Refusing to review if they have a conflict of interest (e.g., direct competition, financial interest, personal relationship with authors).

  • Not using knowledge gained from the manuscript for their own benefit before publication.

  • Not engaging in any form of misconduct (e.g., selective criticism, personal attacks).

By adhering to this rigorous double-blind peer review policy, the JOURNAL STRATEGIC AND INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT aims to ensure the publication of high-quality, credible, and impactful research in the fields of strategic and innovative management.