Peer Review

The Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences follows a rigorous Double-Blind Review procedure, ensuring fairness, efficiency, and excellence in article quality. This process maintains anonymity for both authors and reviewers, reducing potential biases arising from factors like nationality or previous controversial work. By protecting author anonymity, the review process emphasizes the assessment of manuscript content rather than the reputations of well-known authors. Author anonymity to prevent reviewer bias, for example, based on the author's country of origin or previous controversial work. Manuscripts written by prestigious or well-known authors are considered based on the content of their manuscripts, not their reputation. This statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

The Peer Review Process (Source: More Types of Reviews)

Article Review Process

Upon submission, articles undergo several sequential stages before publication:

Initial Review Stage (7 to 10 days): Submitted articles are assessed by the journal's editor to ensure compliance with the "Guide for Authors" format and alignment with the journal's objectives and scope. Articles meeting these criteria proceed to the next stage, where a peer reviewer is assigned.

Review Stage (6-8 weeks): Articles passing the initial review are sent to two or more expert reviewers.

Articles accepted with minor or major revisions must be revised in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. Subsequently, reviewers will provide their reports to the editor, recommending one of the following actions:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Decline Submission

Editors will base their decisions on these recommendations and reviewer comments, with the possibility of seeking additional review if necessary (Second Round). The Editor in Chief will ultimately determine the acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.

Article Resubmission (After Peer Review)

Almost every published paper undergoes at least one round of revision. Authors should view a revision request as positive feedback and an opportunity to enhance the quality of their research paper. It is crucial to revise the paper meticulously according to the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid unnecessary delays in the review process. The revised paper, along with a detailed response to the review report, should be submitted within 6-8 weeks.

Authors must ensure accuracy and thoroughness in incorporating the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid further review cycles and potential delays. If the editors determine that the reviewers’ comments have not been satisfactorily addressed, additional revisions may be required.

Considering other academic and professional commitments, authors may request additional time if they believe that more effort and time are needed to improve the paper’s quality.

After addressing reviewer comments or justifying lack of revisions, articles enter the publication queue. Authors receive formal notification of final acceptance.

Accepted manuscripts will be published in consideration of the sequence of acceptance dates, authors' geographical distribution, and the order of acceptance. The publication process typically takes 6-7 months from submission.

Source: Elsevier