We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via email using the review form.
Criteria for publication
Journal of Management and Business: Research and Practice receives many more submissions than they can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in the journal, a paper should meet four general criteria:
- Provides evidence for its conclusions.
- Novel (we do not consider meeting report abstracts and preprints on community servers to compromise novelty).
- Of importance to scientists in the specific field.
- Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in the journal rather than the best of the specialist journals.
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field). Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two reviewers.
The review process includes:
- Formal assessment and preliminary evaluation of the paper by the editorial board;
- External publishing review – all the papers are evaluated by independent reviewers, who are experts on the subject concerned. The reviewers are not members of the editorial and scientific committee of the journal. The reviewer of a given paper is not affiliated with the research centre represented by the author. The evaluation is carried out in accordance with the principle of double anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article (double-blind review).
- Evaluation of the scientific quality of the contribution – following the structure of the paper ( Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion), proper choice of statistical methods, application of statistical methods, correctness of the results of calculations, presentation of the results, validity of the conclusions, quality of the methods used.
- Evaluation of the language quality by a language editor
- Originality/Novelty: Is the question original and well defined? Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge?
- Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses and speculations carefully identified as such?
- Quality of Presentation: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?
- Scientific Soundness: is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw the conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
- Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the Journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (please see the Aims and Scope of the journal)
- Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work provide an advance towards the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?
- English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the paper and they may recommend to: (i) publish the paper in the current form, (ii) publish the paper after minor corrections, (iii) publish the paper after major corrections and an additional review, (iv) reject the paper. Reviewers include the recommendations and comments, which are then sent to the author(s). The editors should not reverse decisions on publication unless serious problems are identified.
We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration. We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.
When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms. We take reviewers’ criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.
Writing the review
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice to authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for the journal (as outlined in the letter from the editor when asking for the review). If the reviewer believes that a manuscript would not be suitable for publication, his/her report to the author should be as brief as is consistent with enabling the author to understand the reason for the decision. Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors.
Journal of Management and Business: Research and Practice applies rapid editorial decisions, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.
Double blind peer review
All papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and anonymous double-blind peer review. All material submitted to our journal will be reviewed by the Editorial team. Papers may be rejected without full peer review, remaining papers will be sent for external peer review. Our journal operates a double-blind peer review process and aims to provide rapid peer review with papers receiving a first decision within an average of 60 days. Authors may be requested to produce the data on which their manuscript is based (or associated documents, e.g. ethical approval letter) by the Editor(s) or their assignee for examination. All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. They may be reviewed by the Editors, Editorial Office staff and assigned peer reviewers unless otherwise permitted by the authors. By accepting to review a manuscript, referees agree to treat the material as confidential. For articles in which the Editor/Deputy Editors have a conflict of interest, they are obliged to withdraw from the decision-making process.
Reviewing peer review
Ethics and security
Editors of the Journal of Management and Business: Research and Practice may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned.