Peer Review Policy

International Journal of Business Governance and Management (IJBGM)

Introduction
The International Journal of Business Governance and Management (IJBGM) is committed to maintaining the academic quality, originality and reliability of the research it publishes.
Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes an initial editorial assessment. Manuscripts that meet the journal's basic requirements and are considered suitable for its scope may proceed to peer review.

The peer-review process helps the editorial team assess the academic contribution, research quality, methodology and overall suitability of each submission.

Peer Review Model
IJBGM follows a double-blind peer-review process.
Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the review process. This approach is intended to support independent, objective and unbiased evaluation.

Authors are requested to remove identifying information from the main manuscript file, including names, institutional affiliations and acknowledgements. Author details should be entered separately in the OJS submission system.

Initial Editorial Screening
After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

During this stage, the editors examine:

  • Relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope.
  • Originality and academic contribution.
  • Clarity of research objectives and presentation.
  • Appropriateness of the research methodology.
  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines.
  • Completeness of required declarations and supporting information.
  • Potential plagiarism or other ethical concerns.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to authors for correction or declined without external review.

Selection of Reviewers
Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are assigned to independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge, research experience and ability to evaluate the submitted work objectively.

The journal aims to obtain evaluations from at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript proceeding through external peer review.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline assignments where their impartiality may be affected.

Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of their academic quality and contribution.

The main assessment criteria include:

  • Relevance and significance of the research topic.
  • Originality and contribution to existing knowledge.
  • Clarity of research objectives and research questions.
  • Quality and relevance of the literature review.
  • Suitability of the research design and methodology.
  • Accuracy and presentation of results.
  • Quality of discussion and interpretation.
  • Strength of conclusions and practical or theoretical implications.
  • Appropriate use of citations and references.
  • Overall clarity, structure and academic presentation.

Reviewers may also provide specific suggestions to help authors improve their manuscripts.

Review Process and Confidentiality
Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive and confidential assessments within the timeframe communicated by the editorial team.

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional purposes.

The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors. Similarly, authors' identities are concealed from reviewers under the double-blind review model.

Editorial Decisions
After considering the reviewers' comments and the overall quality of the manuscript, the editor makes an editorial decision.
The possible decisions are:
Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without further substantive changes, subject to final editorial checks.

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before it can be considered for acceptance.

Major Revision: Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript may be sent for further review.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical or scope requirements and will not be considered for publication.
The editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's OJS system.

Revision and Resubmission
When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address the comments provided by reviewers and editors.

A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a response document explaining how each comment has been addressed. Where a suggestion has not been followed, authors should provide a clear academic justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions.

Submitting a revised manuscript does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

Final Editorial Decision
The final decision regarding publication rests with the journal's editor or authorised editorial authority.

Reviewers provide recommendations, but the editorial team considers the full assessment, the manuscript's suitability and the journal's publication standards before making a final decision.

The journal may decline a manuscript even if individual reviewer recommendations are favourable, where there are unresolved academic, ethical or editorial concerns.

Review Timeframe
The time required for peer review may vary depending on the subject area, availability of suitable reviewers, reviewer responses and the extent of revisions required.

IJBGM aims to process submissions as efficiently as possible while allowing sufficient time for a careful academic assessment.

Authors can follow the progress of their submissions through their registered OJS accounts.

Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision has been affected by a procedural error or a misunderstanding of their manuscript may submit an appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals should include clear reasons and relevant supporting information. They will be considered by the appropriate editorial authority.
Concerns about the conduct of the review process may also be reported through the journal's official communication channels.

Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any personal, professional or financial interests that could affect their impartiality.

Anyone with a relevant conflict of interest should withdraw from handling or reviewing the manuscript. The journal will make appropriate arrangements to ensure an independent assessment.

Research Integrity and Ethical Considerations
Peer review does not replace the journal's responsibility to uphold publication ethics.
If plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication or other ethical concerns are identified during review, the editorial team may request clarification or supporting documents from the authors.

Where necessary, the manuscript may be rejected or the matter handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Independence of Editorial Decisions
Editorial decisions are based on academic merit, originality, relevance and compliance with the journal's policies.

Publication charges, financial arrangements, institutional affiliations and personal relationships must not influence the peer-review process or editorial outcome.

Commitment to Fair Peer Review
IJBGM recognises peer review as an essential part of responsible scholarly publishing. The journal is committed to providing authors with a fair, confidential and constructive evaluation process while maintaining the quality and integrity of published research.

Journal: International Journal of Business Governance and Management (IJBGM)
Publisher: Shivi Scientific Press

Website: https://ijbgm.com/