Peer review is one of the fundamental pillars for maintaining the quality, credibility, and scientific integrity of articles published in the Journal of Modern Studies in Management & Organization (JMSMO).
JMSMO uses qualified and independent reviewers to evaluate manuscripts and expects all reviewers to conduct the review process in accordance with the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, scientific integrity, and professional responsibility.
This guideline has been prepared to explain the responsibilities, ethical principles, and expectations of the journal from reviewers.
The primary purpose of peer review at JMSMO is to help maintain and enhance the scientific quality of published articles and to ensure the publication of research that demonstrates:
By providing accurate and constructive feedback, reviewers help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts and assist the editor in making informed scientific decisions.
JMSMO follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process.
In this process:
Submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial team regarding:
Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements will be sent to qualified reviewers for scientific evaluation.
Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider the following:
If any conflict of interest exists or if the reviewer lacks sufficient expertise, the reviewer should inform the editor and decline the review assignment.
Manuscripts submitted for review are considered confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
All information received during the review process must remain confidential.
Reviews must be conducted solely based on scientific criteria.
Reviewers must not be influenced by:
Reviewer evaluations should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript and the quality of the research.
Reviewer comments should be:
Personal, offensive, discriminatory, or irrelevant comments unrelated to the scientific quality of the manuscript are not acceptable.
Reviewers may consider the following aspects when evaluating manuscripts:
Reviewers should assess whether:
Reviewers should evaluate:
Reviewers should consider:
If reviewers identify issues such as:
they should report the issue confidentially to the editor without directly contacting the authors.
Reviewers should not make decisions regarding research misconduct themselves; rather, they should communicate their concerns confidentially to the editor.
Reviewers must comply with confidentiality and scientific integrity requirements when using artificial intelligence tools.
Reviewers must not:
The reviewer remains fully responsible for the final review report and its content.
A review report should preferably include the following sections:
A summary of the manuscript’s strengths, significance, and overall assessment of the research.
Issues that are essential for editorial decision-making, including:
Issues such as:
Reviewers usually provide one of the following recommendations:
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is the responsibility of the editor and is made based on the overall scientific evaluations, journal policies, and editorial considerations.
Reviewers should make every effort to submit their reports within the timeframe specified by the journal.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the assigned period, they should inform the journal office as soon as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed.
JMSMO follows internationally recognized principles and guidelines related to publication ethics, including relevant guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
For inquiries related to the peer review process or collaboration as a reviewer:
This guideline should be read together with the “Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement,” “Peer Review Policy,” and other relevant JMSMO policies.