Peer Review: Double-Blind Peer Review
The Journal of Modern Studies in Management & Organization (JMSMO) operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published articles. The journal follows internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing and adheres to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability for the journal's scope and basic publication requirements. The editorial office aims to complete this initial screening within seven business days.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise. A third reviewer may be appointed whenever additional expert evaluation is considered necessary.
The average peer review period is approximately 2–4 months, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.
To preserve the integrity and impartiality of the review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review.
Before manuscripts are sent for review, all information that could reveal the identity of the author(s) is removed, including names, affiliations, institutional addresses, email addresses, acknowledgements, funding information (where appropriate), and any other identifying details.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical standards, and contribution to the field.
Each submission is first evaluated by the Editor or an assigned Editorial Board member to determine whether the manuscript:
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.
The Editor is solely responsible for selecting qualified, independent, and impartial reviewers based on their scholarly expertise.
Reviewer selection is conducted without discrimination and free from personal, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest.
Although authors may optionally suggest potential reviewers during submission, such suggestions are considered solely at the Editor's discretion and create no obligation for appointment.
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by two independent reviewers.
Where additional specialist expertise or further assessment is required, the Editor may appoint one or more additional reviewers.
The number of reviewers is determined solely by the Editor according to the scientific requirements of each manuscript.
Following evaluation, reviewers are invited to recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
The final publication decision rests exclusively with the Editor, who considers reviewers' recommendations together with the journal's editorial policies.
All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
If a reviewer recognizes the identity of the author(s) or identifies any potential conflict of interest that could compromise impartiality, the reviewer should immediately inform the Editor.
Upon completion of the peer review process, reviewers may request an official Reviewer Certificate issued by the journal in recognition of their scholarly contribution.
Additional information regarding the journal's editorial policies is available in the following sections: