Peer-Review Policy

The Journal of Personnel Management (JPM), published by SMARCONS (Society of Management Research and Consultancy), follows a rigorous, fair, transparent, independent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

JPM uses an online manuscript management system to manage submissions, editorial screening, reviewer assignments, review reports, revision tracking, editorial decisions, and communication with authors and reviewers.

JPM follows a double-blind peer review process. This means that the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the peer review process. Authors are required to remove identifying information from the manuscript file before submission.

The journal normally aims to provide an initial editorial decision within 4–8 weeks. However, the review timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and quality, revision requirements, and the number of review rounds required.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or assigned handling editor to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of JPM

  • Meets the journal’s submission and formatting requirements

  • Demonstrates originality and scholarly relevance

  • Complies with applicable ethical and publication policies

  • Shows sufficient academic quality to proceed to external peer review

Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, poorly prepared, incomplete, ethically non-compliant, or lacking sufficient scholarly contribution may be rejected at the initial screening stage without external peer review.

Editorial screening does not constitute external peer review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two qualified and independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of factors including:

  • Academic qualifications

  • Research expertise

  • Relevant publication record

  • Methodological knowledge

  • Experience in the subject area

  • Absence of known conflicts of interest

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on relevant scholarly and editorial criteria, including:

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of JPM

  • Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and research questions

  • Adequacy of the theoretical foundation

  • Quality and relevance of the literature review

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology

  • Validity, reliability, and transparency of analysis

  • Interpretation and discussion of findings

  • Ethical compliance

  • Practical and theoretical contribution

  • Quality of writing and organization

  • Accuracy and appropriateness of tables and figures

  • Quality and relevance of references

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, evidence-based, professional, and respectful feedback that assists editors in reaching an informed decision and helps authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process

  • Declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation

  • Review manuscripts objectively and professionally

  • Evaluate manuscripts on their scholarly merit

  • Avoid personal criticism of authors

  • Provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments

  • Identify relevant published work that may have been overlooked, where appropriate

  • Notify the editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication, data falsification, ethical misconduct, citation manipulation, or other publication concerns

  • Complete the review within the agreed timeline or notify the editorial office promptly if additional time is required

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, ideas, interpretations, or other material obtained through peer review for their own research, publication, professional advantage, or personal benefit.

Reviewers must not disclose or share manuscripts with unauthorized persons.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for managing the peer review process fairly, independently, consistently, and confidentially.

Editorial decisions are based on factors including:

  • Scholarly merit

  • Originality

  • Methodological soundness

  • Ethical compliance

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

  • Clarity and quality of presentation

  • Reviewers’ evaluations and recommendations

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, personal characteristics, or other factors unrelated to scholarly merit.

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions.

Editors may:

  • Request additional reviews

  • Seek clarification from reviewers or authors

  • Invite minor or major revisions

  • Return a revised manuscript for additional peer review

  • Assign additional or alternative reviewers

  • Reject a manuscript

  • Accept a manuscript when it satisfies the journal’s requirements

Editors must disclose and appropriately manage actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

If an editor has a conflict of interest involving a manuscript, responsibility for the manuscript will be transferred to another suitably qualified and independent editor.

Editorial Decisions

Following consideration of reviewer reports and the manuscript, an editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Resubmit for Review

  • Reject

Authors receive the editorial decision together with relevant reviewer comments and editorial guidance.

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit:

  1. A revised manuscript; and

  2. A detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly explain any reviewer recommendation that they have not implemented and provide an appropriate scholarly justification.

Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be:

  • Assessed by the handling editor

  • Returned to the original reviewers

  • Sent to one or more additional reviewers

The submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Revisions and Re-Review

Authors are expected to respond to reviewer and editorial comments professionally, comprehensively, and within the timeframe communicated by the journal.

The revised manuscript should clearly reflect the changes made, and the accompanying response document should address comments point by point.

Minor revisions may be evaluated by the handling editor without being returned to the original reviewers.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or, where appropriate, sent to other qualified reviewers.

Acceptance is granted only when the responsible editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets JPM’s academic, methodological, ethical, and editorial standards.

After final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to relevant production stages, which may include:

  • Copyediting

  • Formatting

  • Typesetting

  • Proofreading

  • Final production

At the proof stage, authors should normally make only minor corrections relating to production, formatting, typographical errors, or factual inaccuracies.

Major changes to the content, authorship, results, or conclusions after acceptance are not normally permitted unless specifically approved by the editor for legitimate ethical, scholarly, or technical reasons.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to JPM are treated as confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and other individuals involved in the editorial and review process must not disclose manuscript content, data, reviewer comments, editorial correspondence, author information, or decision details to unauthorized persons.

Information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage.

The journal expects confidentiality to be maintained before, during, and after completion of the review process.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality or objectivity.

Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

  • Financial interests

  • Employment relationships

  • Institutional relationships

  • Personal or family relationships

  • Recent research collaborations

  • Supervisory or student relationships

  • Academic competition

  • Professional disputes

  • Other circumstances that could compromise impartial judgment

Where an editor or reviewer has a relevant conflict of interest, that individual should not participate in evaluating or deciding the manuscript.

The reviewer or editor will be replaced where necessary, and responsibility will be assigned to an appropriate independent person.

Peer Review Integrity and Misconduct

JPM is committed to protecting the integrity, confidentiality, independence, and credibility of its peer review process.

The journal may investigate suspected peer review misconduct, including:

  • Fabricated reviewer identities

  • False reviewer accounts

  • Manipulated peer review

  • Manipulated or fabricated review reports

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

  • Citation manipulation

  • Coercive citation practices

  • Breaches of confidentiality

  • Inappropriate reviewer conduct

  • Biased or discriminatory review practices

  • Unauthorized sharing of manuscripts

  • Misuse of unpublished manuscript content

  • Attempts by authors, reviewers, or third parties to improperly influence editorial decisions

When concerns arise, the editorial team may take appropriate action, including:

  • Seeking clarification

  • Suspending the review process

  • Replacing a reviewer

  • Appointing additional reviewers

  • Reassessing editorial decisions

  • Rejecting a manuscript

  • Correcting the publication record

  • Initiating action under the journal’s publication ethics policies

Any action taken will depend on the nature, seriousness, and available evidence concerning the issue.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that the decision resulted from:

  • A significant misunderstanding of the manuscript

  • A material factual error

  • A procedural problem

  • An unmanaged conflict of interest

  • A serious misinterpretation of the research

  • A significant error in the review or editorial process

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office and should provide a clear explanation and appropriate supporting evidence.

An appeal is not intended merely to express disagreement with an editorial decision.

The Editor-in-Chief, or an independent editor where appropriate, will review the appeal. Additional reviewers or editorial advisers may be consulted where necessary.

The decision reached following the journal’s appeal review is final.

Complaints concerning peer review, editorial conduct, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, or other editorial matters may also be submitted to the JPM editorial office.

Special Issues

Where JPM publishes a special issue, thematic issue, or guest-edited collection, manuscripts submitted to that issue are subject to the same scholarly, ethical, editorial, and peer review standards as regular submissions.

Special issue manuscripts are not exempt from independent peer review.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility and oversight for special issue content.

Where guest editors are appointed, they must comply with JPM’s:

  • Peer Review Policy

  • Conflict of Interest Policy

  • Publication Ethics Policy

  • Editorial standards

  • Confidentiality requirements

Where a manuscript submitted to a special issue is authored by a guest editor or another person involved in managing that issue, the manuscript must be handled independently by an editor who has no conflict of interest with the submission.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, editorial board members, or other individuals associated with JPM are not automatically excluded from consideration.

However, such manuscripts must be handled independently.

The submitting editor or board member must not:

  • Select reviewers

  • Access confidential reviewer identities where this would compromise the double-blind process

  • Influence reviewer reports

  • Participate in the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript

Responsibility for such manuscripts will be assigned to another suitably qualified and independent editor.

The same peer review standards applied to other authors will apply to manuscripts submitted by members of the journal’s editorial structure.

Manuscript Quality Standards

Manuscripts submitted to JPM should demonstrate:

  • A clear and relevant research problem

  • Appropriate alignment with JPM’s aims and scope

  • Strong theoretical and literature grounding

  • Appropriate research design and methodology

  • Transparent data analysis and interpretation

  • Ethical compliance where applicable

  • Clear presentation and interpretation of findings

  • Appropriate discussion of theoretical and/or practical implications

  • Balanced, relevant, and sufficiently current referencing

  • Original contribution to personnel management, human resource management, leadership, organizational behaviour, or related areas within the journal’s scope

Manuscripts should be sufficiently clear and complete to allow reviewers and readers to understand how the study was designed, conducted, analyzed, and interpreted.

Acceptance Criteria

A manuscript may be accepted for publication when it:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of JPM

  • Presents an original and meaningful scholarly contribution

  • Demonstrates appropriate theoretical grounding

  • Uses appropriate and sufficiently rigorous methodology

  • Provides clear and adequately supported findings

  • Demonstrates appropriate interpretation of results

  • Complies with relevant ethical and publication requirements

  • Responds adequately to reviewer and editor comments

  • Meets the journal’s requirements for structure, language, referencing, tables, figures, and overall presentation

Acceptance is based on the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript and satisfactory completion of the editorial and peer review process.

Rejection Criteria

A manuscript may be rejected where it:

  • Falls outside the aims and scope of JPM

  • Lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution

  • Has serious theoretical, methodological, analytical, or reporting weaknesses

  • Contains plagiarism or substantial unattributed material

  • Involves duplicate or redundant publication

  • Contains fabricated or falsified data or results

  • Fails to meet relevant human or animal research ethics requirements, where applicable

  • Contains unresolved authorship, data, ethical, or conflict-of-interest concerns

  • Provides misleading conclusions or unsupported claims

  • Demonstrates serious inconsistencies between the methods, results, and conclusions

  • Has inadequate structure, clarity, or presentation that prevents proper scholarly evaluation

  • Does not adequately address reviewer or editor comments during revision

  • Otherwise fails to satisfy JPM’s scholarly, ethical, or editorial requirements

Rejection decisions are based on the circumstances and scholarly merits of the individual manuscript.

Policy Review

JPM may periodically review and update this Peer Review Policy to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, publication ethics, editorial practice, and the journal’s operational procedures.

Any material changes to the peer review process will be reflected in the publicly available policy.

Contact

Editorial Office
Journal of Personnel Management (JPM)
Email: jpm@smarcons.cm