6. Peer Review Policy

Objective: Ensure fair, objective, and constructive evaluation.

6.1 Preface

The International Journal of Business and Social Dynamics (IJBSD) upholds the highest standards of scholarly integrity by implementing a rigorous, ethical, and transparent peer review process. The Peer Review Policy outlines the principles, procedures, and responsibilities guiding peer review, providing clear expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors.

6.2 Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review at IJBSD is designed to:

  • Assess the scientific quality, rigor, and originality of submitted manuscripts
  • Ensure contributions are novel and meaningful to the field
  • Provide authors with constructive feedback
  • Support editorial decision-making
  • Maintain the integrity and credibility of the academic record

6.3 Peer Review Model

IJBSD employs a double-blind peer review process:

  • Anonymity: Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another
  • Independent Evaluation: At least two independent reviewers assess each manuscript
  • Reviewer Selection: Based on expertise, experience, and absence of conflicts of interest

6.4 Scope of Peer Review

All scholarly submissions undergo peer review, including:

  • Original research articles
  • Review papers
  • Conceptual or theoretical articles
  • Policy papers
  • Case studies

6.5 Review Process Overview

6.5.1 Submission Screening (Desk Review)

Upon submission, manuscripts are screened by the editorial office for:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines
  • Originality (via plagiarism detection tools like Turnitin®)
  • Ethical compliance (human/animal research approvals, consent)

Manuscripts failing initial screening may be returned or rejected without review. Successful submissions proceed to full peer review.

6.5.2 Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers must:

  • Accept or decline within 5 days
  • Declare potential conflicts of interest
  • Agree to confidentiality and ethical conduct

6.5.3 Review Duration

  • Standard review period: 2–3 weeks
  • Extensions may be granted upon request

6.6 Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
  • Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback
  • Evaluate:
    • Originality and contribution
    • Clarity and organization
    • Theoretical/methodological rigor
    • Validity of results and conclusions
    • Relevance and completeness of references
  • Avoid personal or discriminatory comments

6.6.1 Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must:

  • Not use unpublished information for personal gain
  • Disclose conflicts of interest
  • Notify editors of ethical concerns, including:
    • Plagiarism
    • Data fabrication
    • Redundant publication
    • Undisclosed conflicts

6.7 Reviewer Anonymity and Confidentiality

  • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors
  • Manuscripts are confidential and must not be shared or discussed
  • Direct contact between reviewers and authors is prohibited

6.8 Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer recommendations, editors may decide to:

  • Accept: Suitable for publication with minimal or no changes
  • Minor Revision: Small changes required; usually not re-reviewed
  • Major Revision: Significant changes; revised manuscript may be re-reviewed
  • Reject and Resubmit: May be reconsidered as a new submission
  • Reject: Unsuitable for publication

Editors may consult additional reviewers or board members in complex cases.

6.9 Revision and Resubmission

Authors must:

  • Submit revised manuscript within the specified timeframe
  • Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
  • Highlight changes using tracked changes or annotations
  • Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed depending on changes

6.10 Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by:

  • Submitting a formal appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief
  • Providing evidence or rationale for reconsideration
  • Appeals are reviewed independently; decisions are final

6.11 Reviewer Recognition

IJBSD acknowledges reviewer contributions by:

  • Offering certificates of review upon request
  • Encouraging registration on platforms like Publons
  • Listing active reviewers in the annual acknowledgment

6.12 Conflicts of Interest

All parties must declare conflicts affecting review objectivity:

6.12.1 Reviewers:

  • Personal or professional relationships with authors
  • Recent collaboration with authors
  • Financial interests related to the manuscript

 

6.12.2 Editors:

  • Must recuse themselves in case of conflict and assign a neutral editor

6.13 Reviewer Misconduct

Examples include:

  • Breaching confidentiality
  • Using manuscript content for personal research
  • Deliberate delays
  • Unconstructive or biased feedback

Consequences: Removal from reviewer database and notification to the institution.

6.14 Post-Publication Review and Corrections

  • Errors after publication may result in corrections, retractions, or editorial notices
  • Peer reviewers may be consulted during investigations
  • IJBSD supports post-publication discussion, following academic civility and evidence-based critique

6.15 Transparency and Best Practices

  • Reviewer guidance, expectations, and peer review procedures are publicly available on the IJBSD website
  • Policies align with COPE Core Practices and Open Access best practices