Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Management and Human Science (IJMHS) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, integrity, transparency, and ethical publishing. All research articles and other manuscripts designated as peer-reviewed content undergo a structured editorial assessment and independent peer-review process before a final publication decision is made.

1. Peer Review Model

IJMHS follows a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identities within the anonymised manuscript file.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office and/or a designated Editor. The initial screening considers:

  • relevance to the aims and scope of IJMHS;
  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;
  • overall academic and methodological quality;
  • ethical and research-integrity requirements;
  • plagiarism and similarity concerns; and
  • suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, do not meet minimum scholarly or ethical standards, or do not comply substantially with submission requirements may be rejected without external peer review. An initial editorial rejection does not imply that the topic lacks academic value; rather, it indicates that the manuscript is not considered suitable for further consideration by IJMHS in its submitted form.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully complete initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected on the basis of factors including:

  • subject expertise;
  • relevant research and publication experience;
  • suitability to assess the methodology and subject matter;
  • independence from the authors and the submitted research;
  • ability to provide a fair, constructive, and timely review.

Where the reviews differ substantially or where additional specialist expertise is required, the Editor may invite an additional reviewer. The selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the journal. Authors may suggest potential reviewers where permitted by the journal; however, IJMHS is under no obligation to use suggested reviewers.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to IJMHS are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished information contained in a submitted manuscript for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality throughout and following the review process in accordance with the journal's editorial and publication-ethics policies.

5. Assessment by Reviewers

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively. Depending on the nature of the submission, reviewers may consider:

  • originality and significance of the research;
  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
  • clarity of the research objectives or questions;
  • appropriateness and rigour of the methodology;
  • quality and depth of analysis;
  • validity of the conclusions;
  • engagement with relevant literature;

Reviewers should provide sufficiently detailed comments to help both the Editor make an informed decision and the authors improve the manuscript. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, unsupported allegations, or inappropriate language are not acceptable.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Following assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes.
  • Minor Revision – limited amendments are required before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.
  • Major Revision – substantial amendments, clarification, additional analysis, or restructuring are required.
  • Reject – the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in IJMHS.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised handling Editor, who considers the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's quality and relevance, ethical requirements, and the journal's editorial standards.

7. Revision by Authors

Where revision is requested, authors receive relevant reviewer and editorial comments and are expected to respond carefully to each point raised. Authors should normally submit:

  • a revised manuscript; and
  • a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a clear academic justification in their response. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by an Editor, Editorial Board member, Reviewer Board member, or an individual closely associated with IJMHS are subject to the same editorial standards and peer-review requirements as other submissions. Such manuscripts will be handled independently by an Editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The submitting editor or board member will not participate in reviewer selection or the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.

9. Research Integrity Concerns

If concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, citation manipulation, or other potential misconduct arise during peer review, the journal may suspend the review process while the matter is investigated. Appropriate action will be taken in accordance with the journal's publication-ethics policies and recognised principles of scholarly publishing.

10. Peer Review Timeline

IJMHS aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while ensuring that the quality of review is not compromised. The journal generally aims to complete the initial peer-review process within approximately 2–8 weeks and publication process within approximately 4-24 weeks, although the actual time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for specialist review, and the number of revision rounds required. Authors will be informed of editorial decisions through the journal's submission system and/or registered correspondence. IJMHS does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specified period.

11. Ethical Standards in Peer Review

IJMHS is committed to conducting peer review fairly, independently, confidentially, and without discrimination on the basis of nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, religion, political belief, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly merit of the submission. Editors and reviewers are expected to act with integrity and to preserve the independence of the editorial decision-making process. The journal periodically reviews its peer-review procedures to maintain appropriate standards of quality, transparency, research integrity, and responsible scholarly publishing.