Peer Review Process

At INNOVATION: International Journal of Management Science, the peer review process is fundamental to ensuring the quality, accuracy, and academic integrity of the articles published. The journal follows a rigorous and transparent process designed to maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing. Below is a detailed outline of the peer review process followed by the journal.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

When an author submits a manuscript to INNOVATION: International Journal of Management Science, the editorial team first conducts an initial screening to ensure the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements. This includes checking for:

Relevance to the journal's scope.
Proper formatting and adherence to submission guidelines.
Originality of the manuscript and absence of plagiarism.

If the manuscript passes this initial screening, it is then sent to the Editor-in-Chief or managing editor for further evaluation. The editor may also conduct a plagiarism check using appropriate software tools to confirm the manuscript's originality.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Once the manuscript passes the initial screening, the editor assigns it to two or more expert peer reviewers in the field of study related to the manuscript. The selection of reviewers is based on their expertise, qualifications, and previous experience in the subject matter of the manuscript. The editor ensures that the reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the authors of the manuscript.

Reviewers are chosen based on the following criteria:

Expertise in the relevant field of study.
A demonstrated track record of scholarly work and research in the area.
Objectivity and impartiality.
Availability and willingness to review the manuscript within the set timeframe.

In the case of high-profile or highly specialized research, the editor may invite external reviewers with specific expertise to provide additional insights.

3. Peer Review Process

The peer review process at INNOVATION: International Journal of Management Science follows a double-blind format, where both the authors and the reviewers are anonymized. This process ensures impartial and unbiased evaluations of the manuscript. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on several criteria, including:

Scientific and academic quality: The clarity, originality, and rigor of the research, including the research methodology, data analysis, and theoretical framework.
Relevance to the field: The importance of the research within the field of management science and innovation.
Contribution to the literature: The manuscript’s potential to advance knowledge, theory, or practice in the field.
Clarity and structure: The manuscript's organization, writing quality, and overall presentation.
Ethical considerations: Ensuring that the manuscript complies with ethical guidelines, such as proper citation of sources, ethical treatment of research participants, and transparency in reporting results.

Reviewers are given a set period to complete their reviews (typically 2-3 weeks), during which they assess the manuscript thoroughly and provide constructive feedback. Reviewers may suggest revisions, ask for clarifications, or recommend that the manuscript be accepted or rejected.

4. Reviewer Feedback

After completing their evaluations, reviewers submit their comments and recommendations to the editor. The feedback is typically categorized as:

Accept: If the manuscript meets the required standards and is suitable for publication without or with minor revisions.
Minor Revisions: If the manuscript requires some small changes or clarifications, but is otherwise suitable for publication.
Major Revisions: If the manuscript requires significant changes before it can be considered for publication. This could include substantial revisions to the methodology, data analysis, or overall structure.
Reject: If the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards in terms of originality, quality, relevance, or contribution to the field.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, constructive feedback to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. In some cases, the reviewers may also suggest additional references or resources that could strengthen the manuscript.

5. Editor’s Decision

After reviewing the feedback from the peer reviewers, the editor makes a decision regarding the manuscript. The editor may:

Accept the manuscript as it is.
Request minor or major revisions from the author, based on the reviewers' suggestions.
Reject the manuscript if it does not meet the journal’s standards.

The editor communicates the decision to the author, along with the reviewers' comments and feedback. If revisions are required, the author is given a specified timeframe to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

If the manuscript is returned to the author for revisions, the author must carefully consider the reviewers' comments and suggestions. Authors are expected to address all points raised by the reviewers and explain how they have incorporated the feedback in the revised manuscript. Authors should also highlight the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments.

Once the revisions are submitted, the manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers for a second round of evaluation to ensure that the revisions meet the necessary standards. The revised manuscript is reviewed in a similar manner, and a final decision is made based on whether the changes have addressed the reviewers’ concerns.

7. Final Decision and Publication

If the revised manuscript is accepted, the editor sends the final version to the production team for formatting, proofreading, and final preparation for publication. The author is notified once the article has been accepted for publication, and the manuscript is scheduled for an upcoming issue.

If the manuscript is rejected, the editor provides constructive feedback and encourages the author to revise the manuscript based on the reviewers' feedback for submission to another journal.

8. Transparency and Ethics

Throughout the peer review process, INNOVATION: International Journal of Management Science adheres to ethical standards of fairness, transparency, and confidentiality. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the task, and the identities of the reviewers and authors are kept confidential throughout the review process.

The peer review process is designed to improve the quality of submissions and ensure that the published articles meet the highest academic and ethical standards. The journal is committed to maintaining transparency in the review process and addressing any allegations of misconduct appropriately.

Conclusion

The peer review process at INNOVATION: International Journal of Management Science is designed to ensure that the research published in the journal is of high quality, rigorously evaluated, and contributes meaningfully to the field of management science. This process helps maintain the integrity and credibility of the journal, benefiting both authors and readers by ensuring the publication of reliable and valuable research.