REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Model

The International Journal of Management, Economic, Business and Accounting (IJMEBA) applies a double-anonymous peer-review process.

Under this model, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors during the review process.

Manuscripts that successfully pass editorial screening are normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

The purpose of peer review is to support fair editorial decisions and to improve the scholarly quality, validity, clarity, originality, and integrity of manuscripts considered for publication in IJMEBA.

1. Submission Received

All manuscripts must be submitted through the official IJMEBA Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The Editorial Office initially checks the completeness of files and submission metadata.

2. Technical and Administrative Screening

The Editorial Office examines whether the manuscript complies with basic journal requirements, including:

  • use of the current manuscript template;
  • completeness of manuscript files;
  • complete and accurate author metadata;
  • anonymization requirements;
  • required declarations;
  • reference and citation requirements; and
  • other technical submission requirements.

Incomplete submissions may be returned to the authors for technical correction before further editorial evaluation.

3. Scope and Preliminary Scholarly Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Associate Editor, or Section Editor assesses the manuscript for:

  • alignment with the aims and scope of IJMEBA;
  • research relevance;
  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;
  • basic methodological adequacy;
  • clarity of academic presentation; and
  • compliance with publication-ethics requirements.

The journal reserves the right to decline a manuscript without external peer review when it is clearly outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, contains serious ethical concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.

4. Similarity Screening

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are subject to similarity screening in accordance with IJMEBA's Plagiarism Screening Policy.

The similarity report is interpreted by the Editorial Team and is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision. Editors consider the nature, location, and scholarly context of any textual overlap.

5. Assignment of Handling Editor

A manuscript that passes the preliminary assessment is assigned to an editor with appropriate subject expertise.

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where a personal, institutional, professional, financial, or other conflict of interest could compromise editorial independence.

6. Reviewer Selection

The handling editor normally invites at least two qualified and independent reviewers based on:

  • subject expertise;
  • research and publication experience;
  • methodological competence;
  • absence of relevant conflicts of interest; and
  • ability to provide an objective and timely review.

Reviewers should not be selected solely because of personal relationships with editors or authors.

7. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Reviewers receive an anonymized version of the manuscript and are expected to assess its scholarly merit independently.

The review should consider, where applicable:

  • relevance to the journal's scope;
  • originality and novelty;
  • theoretical foundation;
  • research questions or hypotheses;
  • research design and methodology;
  • quality and transparency of data analysis;
  • validity of results;
  • depth of discussion;
  • theoretical and practical implications;
  • quality and relevance of references;
  • ethical compliance; and
  • clarity of presentation.

Reviewers should provide constructive comments for the authors and a confidential recommendation to the editor.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept Submission;
  • Revisions Required;
  • Resubmit for Review;
  • Resubmit Elsewhere; or
  • Decline Submission.

Reviewer recommendations do not automatically determine the final decision. The handling editor evaluates the reports together with the manuscript's scholarly quality and compliance with journal policy.

9. Revision by Authors

When revisions are required, authors should respond carefully and systematically to all reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should provide a point-by-point response indicating:

  • the reviewer or editor comment;
  • the revision made;
  • the location of the revision in the manuscript; or
  • a scholarly explanation where a recommendation has not been followed.

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review when necessary.

10. Further Review

A substantially revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers when the editor considers further independent assessment necessary.

There is no predetermined number of review rounds. The process continues until the editor has sufficient scholarly evidence to make an informed decision or determines that further revision is unlikely to resolve the principal concerns.

11. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the appropriately authorized editor on the basis of:

  • reviewer reports;
  • author responses;
  • editorial evaluation;
  • scholarly quality;
  • ethical compliance; and
  • relevance to IJMEBA.

Editorial decisions are independent of Article Processing Charge (APC) payments, waiver eligibility, institutional partnerships, sponsorship, advertising, personal relationships, or other commercial considerations.

12. Review Timeline

IJMEBA requests reviewers to complete an accepted review assignment within approximately 14 days. The overall review time may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of the authors.

IJMEBA does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific period.

13. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to external generative-AI systems or other third-party platforms where confidentiality cannot be assured.

14. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their judgment.

A reviewer who identifies a relevant conflict of interest should decline the review invitation or immediately inform the editor.

15. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive evaluations. Personal criticism of authors, discriminatory comments, coercive citation practices, citation manipulation, misuse of confidential information, and other unethical review practices are prohibited.

Special Issues and Invited Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted to special issues, thematic issues, or through formal invitations are subject to the same scholarly, ethical, editorial-screening, and peer-review standards as regular submissions.

An invitation to submit a manuscript does not constitute an acceptance decision and does not guarantee publication.

Editorial Independence

IJMEBA maintains editorial independence in all manuscript decisions. Institutional cooperation, Editorial Board membership, reviewer membership, Article Processing Charges, APC waivers, sponsorship, advertising, and other financial or organizational relationships do not determine manuscript acceptance.