Review Process

The International Journal of Business Operations and Management Studies enforces a rigorous peer-review framework engineered to uphold absolute scholarly objectivity and empirical precision. By maintaining a stringently managed double-blind system, the journal eliminates implicit bias, ensuring that manuscript selection is governed purely by intellectual merit, methodological integrity, and domain contribution.

The Peer Review Sequence

The editorial workflow follows a structured path managed entirely through the journal's automated editorial platform. This system ensures transparency, trackable timelines, and clear accountability at every stage.

 

1.Submission & Pre-Check:

Upon submission, the Editorial Office screens the manuscript using Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate) to identify unoriginal content. Concurrently, the managing editor verifies structural adherence to British English conventions, proper anonymisation of files, and the presence of verified author ORCID iDs.

2.Editorial Desk Evaluation:

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor reviews the paper's theoretical alignment with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts lacking sufficient academic depth, violating ethical standards, or displaying fragmented methodologies are desk-rejected at this stage without entering external review.

3.Double-Blind Evaluation:

Manuscripts passing desk evaluation are assigned to a minimum of two independent external reviewers who possess verified expertise in the specific methodology or subject area. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are made aware of each other's identities. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript over a standard 21-to-30-day window.

4.Synthesis and Editorial Decision:

Once both independent reports are submitted, the Associate Editor synthesises the evaluations and provides a formal recommendation. The final administrative decision is rendered by the Editor-in-Chief, who communicates detailed feedback and the definitive verdict to the corresponding author.

 

Editorial Decision Framework

The final decision falls under one of four distinct publishing pathways, determined by the consensus of the reviewer panel and the oversight of the handling editor:

Formal Acceptance

The manuscript is deemed conceptually complete and methodologically sound. It is immediately forwarded to the production department for XML typesetting, final copyediting, and digital object identifier (DOI) assignment.

Minor Revision

The core architecture of the paper is sound, but specific refinements are required. Authors must address localized 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, clarifying variables, or expanding the discussion section. Resubmissions under this category are routinely routed back to the original external reviewers for a second 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 review.