PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Every manuscript that is submitted to Jurnal Manajemen goes through an initial editorial evaluation and a double blind peer review. The identity of the authors is not shown to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not shown to the authors. Decisions on manuscripts are made by the editors on the basis of the reviews, and not by the publisher.

PEER REVIEW AT A GLANCE
Review model	Double blind peer review
Number of reviewers	Usually two to three independent experts
Initial editorial evaluation	Up to 3 weeks
Review by experts	Usually up to 8 weeks
Final decision	The Editor in Chief, on the basis of the reports of the reviewers
Reviewers	Volunteers, without an honorarium
Questions about peer review	jurnal.mamen@gmail.com

The times above are estimates and not guarantees. The actual time depends on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revisions, and the number of rounds of review.

Stages of the Process

No.	Stage	Main activity	Estimated time
1	Initial evaluation	The editors check the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript.	Up to 3 weeks
2	Reviewer assignment	Independent experts in the field are invited to review the manuscript.	Part of the review period
3	Review	The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually up to 8 weeks
4	Decision	The Editor in Chief decides on the basis of the reports of the reviewers.	After the reports are received
5	Revision	The author revises the manuscript, and a further round of review is held when it is needed.	As stated in the decision notice
6	Publication	The accepted manuscript is copyedited, formatted, and placed in an upcoming issue.	See Publication Frequency

1. Initial Evaluation

The editors first decide whether a manuscript is ready to be sent to reviewers. This evaluation takes up to three weeks. A manuscript can be rejected at this stage when it is not original, when it has serious scientific flaws, or when it is outside the scope of the journal. A manuscript that meets the minimum requirements is sent on to the reviewers.

Check	What the editors look at
Scope and focus	Whether the topic fits the field of management, including production and operations management, finance, marketing, human resources, and other relevant topics.
Format	Whether the manuscript follows the Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Preparation page, including the citation style. A manuscript that does not follow them is returned to the author for reformatting.
Originality	A similarity check in line with the Plagiarism Policy. A high similarity result leads to a check by an editor and not to an automatic rejection.
Ethics	Whether the research follows the principles of Publication Ethics, and whether consent has been stated for research that involves participants.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Each manuscript that passes the initial evaluation is sent to usually two to three independent experts in the field. A reviewer decides whether to accept an invitation on the basis of expertise, availability, and any conflict of interest. The members of the reviewer pool are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

Anonymity. The manuscript is made anonymous before it is sent to the reviewers, so that the names and the affiliations of the authors are not visible to them. The comments of the reviewers are also sent to the authors without the names of the reviewers.

Conflicts of interest. A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest must decline the invitation or must not take part in 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.

3. Review

The reviewers assess the scientific quality, the originality, the validity, and the relevance of the manuscript. They give constructive feedback and recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. The review usually takes up to eight weeks. Reviewers are not asked to edit the language of the manuscript, because the correction of language is not part of the peer review.

3.1 Criteria for the assessment

Part of the manuscript	Main questions for the reviewer
Title and abstract	Do they describe the study accurately, and is the contribution clear?
Introduction	Are the background, the research gap, the novelty, and the aim of the research stated clearly?
Research method	Are the design, the sample or participants, the instruments, and the analysis appropriate and sound? Can the study be replicated?
Results and discussion	Are the results correct and clear? Is the discussion linked to earlier studies and theory, and does it show the implications for management theory and practice?
Conclusion	Is the conclusion supported by the results, and does it answer the research question?
References	Are they accurate, up to date, in the required style, and do they cover the relevant literature?
Ethics and integrity	Are there signs of plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, or other concerns?

3.2 Generative AI and the confidentiality of manuscripts

A manuscript under review is confidential. Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, to a generative AI tool. Such a tool may be used only to improve the language of the report of the reviewer, in line with the Generative AI Policies.

4. Decision

The Editor in Chief makes the decision on the basis of the reports of the reviewers and of the conditions for publication. When the comments of the reviewers differ strongly, the editors may invite an additional reviewer, or may consult the Editorial Board. The decision of the editors is final. When the first round of review is not adequate, a further round of review is held.

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is accepted and goes on to copyediting and publication.
Minor revision	Small changes are needed. The deadline is stated in the decision notice.
Major revision	Large changes are needed, and the revised manuscript is reviewed again. The deadline is stated in the decision notice.
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for publication in Jurnal Manajemen.

The decision and the comments are sent to the author through the online system, and the comments stay anonymous. The Author Fees have no influence on the decision.

5. Revision

An author who is asked to revise a manuscript sends back two files:

No.	File	Content
1	Revised manuscript	The manuscript with the changes clearly marked.
2	Response letter	A reply to each comment, which explains the change that was made, or explains why a comment was not followed.

A manuscript with a major revision is usually reviewed again by the same reviewers. For a minor revision, a new review is optional. An author who needs more time should tell the editors before the deadline.

6. Complaints and Appeals

An author who believes that a decision was made in error can appeal by email to jurnal.mamen@gmail.com, with the subject line Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]. The letter must give the reasons with evidence and must respond to the specific points of the decision. Disagreement with the decision is not by itself a reason for reconsideration.

An appeal is examined by an editor who was not involved in the earlier decision, and who may ask for additional opinions. The result of the appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once. Concerns about misconduct in the review are handled under the policy on Allegations of Misconduct.

7. Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers, lecturers, and practitioners in management and related fields are welcome to join the reviewer pool. Candidates can fill in the Call for Reviewer form, or can write to jurnal.mamen@gmail.com. Reviewers work as volunteers and do not receive an honorarium. The benefits are shown below.

No.	Benefit for the reviewer
1	The chance to see recent research before it is published
2	Recognition in the list of reviewers of the journal
3	Evidence of the contribution as part of professional development

8. Publication

After a manuscript is accepted, the author sends the final version. The manuscript is then copyedited and formatted, and it is placed in an upcoming issue, as described on the Publication Frequency page. Changes after publication follow the policy on Correction and Retraction, and scientific discussion of a published article follows the procedure for Post-Publication Discussion.

Ethical Commitments in Peer Review

The editors, the reviewers, and the editorial office are bound by the following commitments, which follow Publication Ethics.

Commitment	What it means
Confidentiality	Information about a manuscript and its review is not disclosed to anyone outside the process.
Objectivity and impartiality	A manuscript is judged on its quality, without personal bias.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed on time, and authors are told the status of their manuscript.
Transparency and accountability	The comments of the reviewers are clear and reasoned, and the editors decide fairly.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers disclose any potential conflict of interest.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Suspected cases are reported at once and handled under the policy on Allegations of Misconduct.
Recognition of reviewers	The contribution of reviewers is acknowledged properly.