Peer Review Process

The Journal of Management and Organization Research applies a double-blind peer-review process.

The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s official OJS platform.

2. Administrative Screening

The editorial office checks:

manuscript completeness;
author metadata;
required declarations;
formatting;
references;
anonymization; and
supplementary files where applicable.

3. Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor evaluates:

relevance to the Aims and Scope;
originality;
scholarly significance;
methodological appropriateness;
quality of writing;
ethical compliance; and
general suitability for external review.

Manuscripts failing to meet essential requirements may be rejected during this stage without external peer review.

4. Similarity Screening

Manuscripts passing preliminary editorial evaluation are screened using the journal’s designated similarity-detection system.

5. External Peer Review

Each research article is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers evaluate:

originality and novelty;
theoretical contribution;
quality of literature review;
appropriateness of research design;
sampling and data collection;
validity and reliability where applicable;
appropriateness of statistical or qualitative analysis;
interpretation of results;
consistency between findings and conclusions;
contribution to management and organization knowledge;
practical and managerial implications;
clarity of presentation; and
ethical considerations.

6. Editorial Decision

Possible decisions include:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Resubmit for Review
Reject

7. Author Revision

Authors receiving a revision decision must respond systematically to reviewer and editor comments.

A response document should explain:

the requested change;
the author’s response;
the revision made; and
the location of the revision in the manuscript.

Where an author disagrees with a reviewer recommendation, the author should provide a clear academic justification.

8. Re-Evaluation

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor depending on the nature of the requested changes.

9. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated independent editor makes the final publication decision.

The final decision considers reviewer recommendations, author revisions, manuscript quality, ethical compliance, and consistency with journal policies.

Editors, Editorial Board members, reviewers, and guest editors who submit manuscripts to the journal must undergo the same quality-control requirements and may not participate in the editorial decision concerning their own work.

The journal aims to complete the initial peer-review process within approximately [X–Y weeks]. Actual review duration may vary according to the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.