Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Business Operations and Management Studies enforces a structured, multi-stage peer evaluation system designed to maintain objective analysis, empirical validity, and academic rigor. By operating an independent, double-blind system managed through an automated tracking platform, the journal ensures that submissions are judged solely on conceptual depth and methodological precision.

The Peer Review Sequence

The editorial and peer evaluation workflow follows a linear path with fixed checkpoints. This structured progression ensures transparency, clear timeline tracking, and absolute accountability from submission to the final editorial decision.

 

1.Administrative Pre-Check & Integrity Screening:Phase 1.

Upon initial submission, the Managing Editor reviews the manuscript file for structural compliance. This phase includes automated plagiarism screening via Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) and an verification of the manuscript's anonymisation. Files containing identifying author data, high similarity indices, or fractured grammar are immediately returned for correction.

2.Editorial Desk Evaluation:Phase 2.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript's theoretical contribution and alignment with the journal's scope. Papers that do not present a distinct advancement in business operations or management sciences, exhibit fundamental flaws in research design, or lack academic depth are desk-rejected within 7 to 10 working days without entering external review.

3.Independent Double-Blind Evaluation:Phase 3.

Manuscripts passing desk evaluation are assigned to a minimum of two external reviewers with verified expertise in the study's specific methodological or thematic domain. To eliminate implicit bias, the identities of authors and reviewers remain strictly confidential. Reviewers are allocated a standard period of 21 to 30 days to submit their analytical evaluations.

4.Synthesis and Executive Decision:Phase 4.

The handling Associate Editor analyzes the independent reviewer reports and submits a formal recommendation. The final administrative decision is rendered exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief, who weighs the constructive feedback against the journal's quality thresholds and transmits the formal decision letter to the author.

 

Editorial Decision Framework

The final editorial verdict communicated to the corresponding author falls under one of four distinct publishing pathways, determined by the consensus of the external review panel and the oversight of the handling editor:

Formal Acceptance

The manuscript is deemed conceptually complete, empirically rigorous, and methodologically sound. It is immediately forwarded to the production department for professional copyediting, XML typesetting, and Digital Object Identifier (DOI) assignment.

Minor Revision

The core architecture and findings of the paper are sound, but specific localized refinements are required. Authors must address minor textual ambiguities, clarify specific data presentations, or update peripheral literature citations. These revisions are typically verified internally by the handling editor.

Major Revision

The manuscript displays significant potential, but requires fundamental structural, theoretical, or analytical overhauls. This may involve re-estimating statistical models, altering variables, or expanding the discussion section. Resubmissions under this category are routinely routed back to the original external reviewers for a secondary round of evaluation.

Formal Rejection

The manuscript exhibits irreparable flaws in its research design, insufficient contribution to the field of operations and management studies, or critical ethical non-compliance. Rejection decisions are final and not subject to appeal unless a demonstrable procedural error occurred during the review cycle.

Dispute Resolution and Appeals Protocol

Authors have the right to appeal a formal rejection if they can demonstrate that the decision was a direct result of a significant procedural error or a clear misunderstanding of the technical content by the reviewer panel.

  • Submission of Appeals: Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office within 30 days of receiving the formal decision letter. The submission must include a detailed, point-by-point scientific rebuttal addressing the specific criticisms raised in the peer-review reports.

  • Adjudication Process: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the appeal alongside the original manuscript, the reviewer comments, and the handling editor's notes. If the appeal is deemed well-founded, the manuscript will be forwarded to an independent member of the Editorial Advisory Board or an entirely new external reviewer for a definitive, independent assessment.

Administrative Notice

To prevent systemic abuse of the editorial workflow, the journal will not entertain multiple appeals for the exact same manuscript. Second appeals or complaints targeting the subjective academic judgment of the reviewers or editors will be automatically dismissed without further investigation.