Peer Review Policy

Understanding Our Peer Review Approach

The Journal of Excellence in Management Sciences (JEMS), published by SMARCONS Journals, uses Open Journal Systems (OJS) to manage manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decisions, and production tracking through an auditable workflow. Our goal is to provide fair, constructive, and timely evaluation that improves manuscript quality and protects research integrity.

JEMS is led by the Editor-in-Chief, supported by the Editorial Board and Handling Editors, and operates with a commitment to ethical conduct, editorial independence, transparency, and confidentiality. We welcome submissions that offer meaningful scholarly contributions to management sciences and related disciplines, including innovative, confirmatory, or thought-provoking studies that are methodologically sound.

Typical timelines: JEMS aims to provide an initial decision as efficiently as possible. Time-to-decision varies by scope fit, reviewer availability, and revision quality, but we generally target a first decision within 4–5 weeks.

Our Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to JEMS undergo double-anonymous peer review, meaning authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities during review. Editorial decisions are based on quality and scholarly merit, not on author identity, affiliation, or ability to pay.

Here’s how our review process works:

Our Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to JEMS undergo double-anonymous peer review, meaning authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities during review. Editorial decisions are based on quality and scholarly merit, not on author identity, affiliation, or ability to pay.

Here’s how the review process works:

Initial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief and/or assigned editor screens each submission to assess scope fit, baseline scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and readiness for external review. Manuscripts may be desk-rejected at this stage if they are out of scope, methodologically weak, ethically incomplete, or insufficiently prepared for review.

Expert Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers are requested to provide structured, evidence-based feedback and a clear recommendation (accept, revise, reject). Reviewers are normally asked to return their reports within a defined time window (commonly 3–5 weeks), depending on manuscript type and complexity.

Editorial Decision
After reviews are received, the handling editor evaluates reviewer input and makes a decision. Authors receive an official decision letter through the journal system. Decisions typically fall into one of the following categories: reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept.

Revisions and Re-Review
If revisions are requested, authors must submit:

• a revised manuscript, and
• a point-by-point response explaining how each comment was addressed (or respectfully justified if not adopted).
  Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the original reviewers or, where necessary, by additional reviewers.

Final Acceptance
A manuscript is accepted only when the editor is satisfied that reviewer concerns have been adequately resolved and that the paper meets the journal’s standards for rigor, clarity, and integrity.

Proofing and Publication
After acceptance, authors receive proofs for a final check. Only minor typographical corrections and essential factual clarifications are permitted at proof stage. The journal reserves the right to apply consistent formatting and layout standards.

 

Your Research Is in Trusted Hands

JEMS is committed to review quality, fairness, and professionalism. Peer review is conducted by qualified scholars selected for expertise and independence.

• Expert Reviewers: Evaluate the manuscript’s contribution, theory, methods, analysis, and interpretation, and flag limitations, gaps, or integrity concerns.
• Dedicated Editors: Ensure reviews are relevant and constructive, resolve conflicting recommendations, and make final decisions based on scholarly merit.
• Constructive Feedback: Authors receive consolidated editorial guidance designed to strengthen the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and contribution.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts, reviews, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential and used only for editorial purposes.

Reviewer recognition (without compromising anonymity): JEMS may acknowledge reviewers only with their consent, typically via an annual reviewer list or public recognition that does not identify which manuscripts were reviewed.

 

Transparency, Accountability, and Research Integrity

JEMS maintains integrity safeguards throughout editorial handling. If concerns arise at any stage, before or after acceptance, the journal may pause processing to verify compliance.

The journal may investigate concerns including (but not limited to): plagiarism, duplicate submission, citation manipulation, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship disputes, data fabrication/falsification, or compromised peer review.

 

Editorial Authority

SMARCONS Journals reserves the right to maintain editorial oversight to protect quality and integrity. The Editor-in-Chief (or delegated senior editorial leadership) may request additional revisions, seek further expert input, or reassess editorial decisions when necessary to uphold journal standards, ethical obligations, and publication integrity.

 

Roles and Responsibilities in the Peer Review Process

Authors
Authors must submit original, scholarly work aligned with journal scope and academic standards. Authors are expected to:

• provide accurate authorship, affiliations, and disclosures;
• present methods and results transparently and honestly;
• respond to editorial communications professionally and within stated timelines;
• submit revisions with a complete response to reviewer/editor comments.
  If authors do not respond after reasonable reminders (typically up to 30 days, unless otherwise specified), the journal may close the file and reject the manuscript.

Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective, respectful, and evidence-based evaluations;
• declare any conflicts of interest and decline reviews where conflicts exist;
• treat manuscripts as confidential and not share or reuse content;
• avoid coercive or irrelevant citation requests;
• refrain from using external AI tools or third-party services to process or upload confidential manuscript content.

Editors
Editors are responsible for:

• selecting qualified, independent reviewers;
• ensuring fair and timely handling;
• managing conflicts of interest and maintaining confidentiality;
• making decisions grounded in scholarly merit and journal standards;
• ensuring reviewer feedback is constructive and appropriately synthesized in decision letters.

 

Manuscript Quality Standards

JEMS evaluates manuscripts against academic and ethical standards. Manuscripts must demonstrate methodological soundness, clarity, originality, and credible engagement with relevant scholarship.

If serious concerns arise at any stage, whether during initial checks, review, revision, or production—the journal may request clarifications, supporting documentation, or additional review, and may decline publication if standards are not met.

 

Acceptance Criteria

To be considered for acceptance, a submission should meet the following criteria:

Clear research foundation
A well-defined research question (and hypothesis where relevant), grounded in an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework, addressing a meaningful scholarly problem.

Appropriate and rigorous methodology
A defensible research design with transparent procedures, credible analysis, and results that are supported by the presented evidence.

Lucid presentation
Clear academic writing, coherent structure, and professionally prepared tables/figures that enhance comprehension and meet scholarly conventions.

Policy and ethics compliance
Compliance with the journal’s ethical and editorial requirements, including originality, authorship integrity, disclosures, and (where applicable) ethics approvals and participant protections.

Grounded in literature
A balanced, current, and relevant body of references that supports the framing, methods, and interpretation, without excessive self-citation or biased citation practices.

 

Rejection Criteria

Manuscripts may be rejected at any stage (including after revision or post-acceptance validation) for reasons including:

Invalid research foundation
Unclear research question, weak conceptual grounding, or work that does not meet scholarly standards.

Major methodological flaws
Design, sampling, analysis, or interpretation issues that undermine validity and cannot be reasonably corrected.

Non-compliance with originality and integrity standards
Plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical citation practices, manipulated peer review, or misrepresentation of novelty.

Substandard presentation
Poor organization, unclear writing, or figures/tables that do not meet minimum academic standards and prevent meaningful review.

Ethical violations
Missing or inadequate ethical approvals/consents where required, privacy breaches, or other ethical non-compliance.

Authorship or data integrity concerns
Unresolved authorship disputes, unverifiable results, suspected fabrication/falsification, or failure to provide reasonable clarifications when integrity concerns arise.

JEMS is committed to a peer review process that is fair, rigorous, confidential, and integrity-driven, ensuring that published research is credible, valuable, and professionally presented.

To guide manuscript acceptance or rejection, SMARCONS – Journal of Excellence in Management Sciences (JEMS) follows clearly defined criteria as discussed above. These resources outline our commitment to publishing research that upholds the highest ethical and editorial standards. For more details, please refer to:

• Our Author Guidelines
• Publication Ethics