Peer Review Process

JMABS: Journal of Management, Accounting, and Business Studies applies a selective editorial and peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts. The process from submission to publication may take up to six months, depending on the complexity of the manuscript, availability of appropriate reviewers, and the authors’ responsiveness to editorial policies, reviewer comments, and revision requirements.

Manuscripts are evaluated based on their academic quality, relevance to the journal’s Focus and Scope, originality, theoretical and practical contribution, methodological appropriateness, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, and contribution to the development of management, accounting, business, finance, entrepreneurship, and related disciplines.

The journal provides reviewer comments and editorial feedback to authors as appropriate, regardless of the final publication decision. In certain cases, a manuscript may be rejected while the authors are encouraged to submit a substantially improved version after addressing specific theoretical, methodological, analytical, or editorial concerns.

The manuscript review procedure is as follows:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Within approximately one week after manuscript submission, a member of the Editorial Board conducts an initial evaluation by considering:

  • conformity with the journal’s Author Guidelines and article template;

  • relevance to the Focus and Scope of JMABS: Journal of Management, Accounting, and Business Studies;

  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;

  • clarity and coherence of presentation;

  • appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • clarity of research objectives or questions;

  • appropriateness of research design and methodology;

  • quality and relevance of references;

  • scientific and ethical acceptability; and

  • overall suitability for further review.

At this stage, the Editorial Board may decide to:

  1. accept the manuscript for external peer review;

  2. return the manuscript to the authors for preliminary revision; or

  3. reject the manuscript without external peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, lack adequate academic quality, contain serious methodological weaknesses, or present significant ethical concerns may be rejected at this stage.

Where necessary, a manuscript may be evaluated by another Editorial Board member before a final preliminary decision is made. If editorial recommendations differ significantly, an additional editor may be consulted to support a fair and objective decision.

2. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to external reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic and research methodology.

JMABS: Journal of Management, Accounting, and Business Studies applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and relevance to the subject of the manuscript.

Reviewers should have no personal, professional, institutional, financial, commercial, or academic conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the review.

Peer-review comments must be objective, constructive, respectful, impartial, and academically grounded. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, aggressive language, or comments unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript are not acceptable.

Depending on the nature of the study, reviewers may evaluate:

  • originality and novelty;

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;

  • significance of the research problem;

  • theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • formulation of hypotheses or research questions;

  • research design and methodology;

  • population, sample, and sampling procedures;

  • validity and reliability of research instruments;

  • quality and appropriateness of data;

  • statistical analysis and interpretation;

  • qualitative analysis, where applicable;

  • accounting and financial analysis;

  • managerial and organizational analysis;

  • marketing, entrepreneurship, or business analysis;

  • interpretation of research findings;

  • consistency among objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions;

  • theoretical contribution;

  • managerial, accounting, financial, entrepreneurial, or business implications;

  • ethical considerations;

  • appropriateness and currency of references; and

  • overall scholarly contribution.

For quantitative research, reviewers may assess the appropriateness of statistical methods, measurement models, hypothesis testing, validity, reliability, and interpretation of analytical results.

For qualitative research, reviewers may assess the appropriateness of the research design, participant selection, data collection procedures, coding or analytical processes, interpretation, credibility, and transparency of the research process.

For accounting and finance studies, reviewers may evaluate the quality of financial data, accounting measurements, financial ratios, market data, audit evidence, disclosure measures, and other relevant analytical indicators.

For conceptual, literature-based, and interdisciplinary studies, reviewers assess the strength of the theoretical argument, quality of literature synthesis, conceptual contribution, logical consistency, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Reviewers are generally requested to complete and return their review reports within two weeks after accepting the review assignment.

Reviewer recommendations may include:

  1. Accepted;

  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions;

  3. Major Revisions Required; or

  4. Rejected.

Reviewer recommendations provide important input for editorial decisions but do not independently determine whether a manuscript will be published.

3. Author Revision

Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the corresponding author together with reviewer and/or editorial comments.

Authors are generally given up to four weeks to:

  • respond to reviewer comments;

  • revise the manuscript;

  • provide additional data, explanations, analyses, or supporting references where necessary; and

  • submit the revised manuscript to the Editorial Board.

Authors must submit a clear Response to Reviewers explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed and indicating the relevant changes made in the revised manuscript.

Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments professionally, systematically, and academically.

If authors disagree with a particular recommendation, they may provide a reasonable and academically supported explanation. A justified disagreement with a reviewer does not automatically result in manuscript rejection.

4. Editorial Decision after Revision

Manuscripts requiring minor revisions may be evaluated and approved directly by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor after the authors have satisfactorily addressed the requested changes.

Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for further evaluation.

Where necessary, the manuscript may undergo more than one revision and review cycle until the Editorial Board determines that it meets the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, and editorial standards.

The final decision on manuscript acceptance rests with the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board, taking into consideration:

  • reviewer recommendations;

  • originality and scholarly contribution;

  • theoretical quality;

  • methodological rigor;

  • quality and validity of analysis;

  • relevance of findings;

  • authors’ responses to reviewer comments;

  • adequacy of revisions;

  • ethical compliance; and

  • conformity with the journal’s Focus and Scope and editorial policies.

5. Editorial Independence and Review Integrity

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the academic merit, quality, relevance, and integrity of the manuscript.

Editorial and peer-review decisions must remain independent of inappropriate:

  • commercial interests;

  • institutional influence;

  • personal relationships;

  • financial interests;

  • professional competition; or

  • other non-academic considerations.

Editors and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest that could affect the fairness or objectivity of the review process.

Reviewer reports, author information, unpublished manuscript content, data, and editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to replace a reviewer, seek an additional review, or conduct further editorial assessment when necessary to ensure the fairness, quality, and integrity of the peer-review process.

6. Galley Proof

After a manuscript has been formally accepted and completed the required editorial stages, the corresponding author will receive the galley proof.

Authors are expected to review and confirm the galley proof within 48 hours after receiving it.

Corrections at this stage should generally be limited to:

  • typographical errors;

  • author names and affiliations;

  • formatting problems;

  • citation or reference inconsistencies; and

  • minor factual inaccuracies.

Substantial changes to research data, methodology, statistical analysis, financial analysis, findings, arguments, discussion, or conclusions are not normally permitted at the galley proof stage.

7. Copyediting and Layout Editing

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and layout editing prior to final publication.

Copyediting may include improvements relating to:

  • academic language;

  • grammar;

  • clarity and readability;

  • consistency of terminology;

  • manuscript structure;

  • citation and reference consistency;

  • tables and figures; and

  • conformity with the journal’s publication style.

Layout editing ensures that the manuscript conforms to the official article design and publication format of JMABS: Journal of Management, Accounting, and Business Studies.

Substantive changes affecting the meaning, interpretation, findings, or conclusions of the manuscript will not normally be made without consultation with the authors.

8. Feedback on the Review Process

The Editorial Board welcomes constructive comments, suggestions, and feedback from authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders concerning the journal’s peer-review and editorial procedures.

Relevant feedback may be considered during periodic evaluations of editorial policies and may be used to improve the quality, fairness, transparency, efficiency, and accountability of the journal’s publication process.

Through this peer-review process, JMABS: Journal of Management, Accounting, and Business Studies is committed to ensuring that published articles meet appropriate scholarly standards and contribute meaningfully to the advancement of management, accounting, business, finance, entrepreneurship, and related disciplines.