PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Jurnal Manajemen Informatika dan Bisnis Digital screens every submission editorially and sends it to double blind peer review. The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Subject experts assess the scientific merit or novelty of the manuscript, its relevance to Information Management and Digital Business, and its fit with the focus and scope of the journal.

Item	Information
Type of review	Double blind peer review
Reviewers per manuscript	At least two independent expert reviewers
Final decision	The Editor in Chief, on the basis of the reviewer comments
Similarity screening	Carried out by the editors with Turnitin
Possible decisions	Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject
Questions	jurnal.jumintal@gmail.com

Review Stages at a Glance

Every manuscript follows the six stages below. The time frames are targets and not guarantees, and the actual time depends on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds. The publication schedule is explained on the Publication Frequency page.

No.	Stage	What happens	Time frame
1	Initial evaluation	The editors check scope, format, originality, and ethics.	Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers
2	Assignment of reviewers	Independent reviewers are invited, and the manuscript is anonymized.	After the initial evaluation
3	Review	The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually two weeks
4	Decision	The Editor in Chief accepts the manuscript, requests a revision, or rejects it.	After the reviews are received
5	Revision	The authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked.	Two weeks for a minor revision, four weeks for a major revision
6	Publication	The final version is copyedited, formatted, and published in an issue.	After acceptance, according to the issue schedule

1Initial Evaluation

Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editors check the four points below. A manuscript that does not meet them may be returned to the authors or rejected without external review.

Check	What the editors look for
Scope and focus	The manuscript must fit the focus and scope of the journal, and it must address scientific merit or novelty in Information Management and Digital Business.
Format	The manuscript must follow the Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Preparation instructions. A manuscript that does not follow them is returned to the authors.
Originality	The manuscript must be free from plagiarism. Authors are advised to run their own similarity check before submission, and the editors screen every manuscript with Turnitin, in line with the Plagiarism Policy. A high similarity score leads to a review by the editors and does not by itself lead to automatic rejection.
Ethics	Research that involves participants must describe the permission and the consent that were obtained, as required by Publication Ethics.

2Assignment of Reviewers

At least two independent reviewers who are experts in the field are invited to review each research article.
Reviewers should come from institutions that are different from the institution of the corresponding author.
Each invited reviewer decides whether to accept the invitation on the basis of expertise, availability, and possible conflicts of interest.
Researchers who wish to review for the journal can register through the Call for Reviewer form. The current reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

2.1 Anonymity

To keep the review double blind, the names of the authors, their affiliations, the acknowledgements, and the author contribution statements are removed before the manuscript is sent to the reviewers. Personal information in the metadata of the file is also removed. The statements on funding and on competing interests are kept by the editors.

2.2 Conflicts of interest

A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest with a manuscript must decline the assignment or abstain from the decision. A manuscript that is submitted by an editor or by a member of the editorial team is handled by an editor who is not involved in it, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy.

3Review

Reviewers usually have two weeks to complete their review, and the period is not longer than two weeks unless an extension has been agreed with the editors. Each reviewer recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection and gives constructive feedback that helps the authors to improve the manuscript. The table below shows what reviewers assess in each part of the manuscript.

Part of the manuscript	What reviewers assess
Title and abstract	Whether they are accurate and whether the contribution of the study is clear.
Introduction	The background, the research gap, the novelty, and the research question or objective.
Research method	The research design, the data and the participants, the instruments or the system design, the analysis, the validity and the reliability, and the permission and consent where they apply.
Results and discussion	The correctness and the clarity of the results, the link to earlier research and theory, and the meaning of the findings for practice in information management and digital business.
Conclusion	Whether the conclusion is supported by the results and answers the research question.
References	The accuracy and the currency of the references, the required citation style, and whether relevant earlier work is cited.
Ethics and integrity	Plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, and other concerns about research integrity.

Confidentiality and the use of generative AI

Reviewers must keep the manuscript confidential and must not upload it to generative AI tools. They may use such tools only to improve the language of their own review report, as described in the Generative AI Policies.

4Decision

The Editor in Chief makes the final decision on the basis of the reviewer comments. If the reviewers disagree significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited.

Decision	Meaning	Time for the authors
Accept	The manuscript goes to copyediting and publication.	Not applicable
Minor revision	Small changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted.	Two weeks
Major revision	Substantial changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted.	Four weeks
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for JUMINTAL.	Not applicable

The decision and the anonymous comments of the reviewers are sent to the authors through the online system. Publication charges, which are described on the Author Fees page, never influence a decision.

5Revision Process

A resubmission must include the revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted, and a rebuttal letter that answers each comment of the reviewers or explains why a comment was not followed.
A manuscript with a major revision normally returns to the same reviewers for a second round of review. For a minor revision, a further review is optional and is decided by the editors.
Authors who need more time must ask for it before the deadline expires.

6Complaints and Appeals

An appeal against a decision is sent to the editorial office by email at jurnal.jumintal@gmail.com, with the subject line Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier].
An appeal must give clear reasons and evidence. Disagreement with the decision alone is not a ground for an appeal.
An editor who is not involved in the manuscript reviews the appeal. The decision on the appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once.
Concerns about misconduct follow the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7Publication

After a manuscript is accepted, the authors submit the final version for copyediting and formatting. The Editor in Chief sets the order of publication on the basis of the accepted date, the geographic distribution of the authors, and the thematic issue. JUMINTAL is published in May and November, as explained on the Publication Frequency page.

Changes to an article after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy, and scholarly comments on a published article follow the Post Publication Discussion procedure.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The peer review process of JUMINTAL follows the principles below, which are based on the Publication Ethics statement of the journal.

Principle	What it means in practice
Confidentiality	Information about the manuscript and about the review is kept confidential.
Objectivity and impartiality	Reviews are based on merit, are free of bias, and are constructive.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed within a reasonable time, and the authors are kept informed.
Transparency and accountability	Reviewers give reasoned comments, and the editors decide fairly.
Conflicts of interest	Possible conflicts are declared, and steps are taken to keep the evaluation unbiased.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Suspected cases are reported to the editors promptly.
Recognition of reviewers	The contribution of the reviewers to the journal is acknowledged.