| .: e-ISSN : 2985-5160 |
 |
| .: MENU :. |
| Editorial Team |
| Reviewers |
| Focus and Scope |
| Peer Review Process |
| Publication Ethics |
| Author Guidelines |
| Open Access Policy |
| Archive Policy |
| Open Access Statement |
| Policy of Screening for Plagiarism |
| Journal License |
| Author Fees |
| .: Indexing :. |
 |
 |
|
|
| .: Information :. |
| For Readers |
| For Authors |
| For Librarians |
| .: Tools :. |
 |
 |
 |
| .: Template :. |
 |
| .: Contact WA :. |
 |
Peer Review Process
The Journal of Economics, Education, Business and Managements (JEEBM) is committed to a fair, objective, rigorous, and timely peer review process in order to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly integrity of the manuscripts it publishes.
JEEBM applies a double-anonymized peer review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. The journal expects all parties involved in peer review to uphold the principles of confidentiality, academic integrity, impartiality, and professional conduct.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Team to determine whether they are suitable for further consideration. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed in terms of:
- relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
- originality and potential scholarly contribution;
- compliance with the journal’s submission requirements and author guidelines;
- clarity of writing and academic presentation;
- basic methodological and analytical adequacy;
- ethical completeness, including authorship, conflict of interest, and other required declarations.
The editorial team may decline a submission at this stage if the manuscript is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet minimum academic or ethical standards, or is insufficiently prepared for peer review.
2. Similarity and Integrity Check
As part of the preliminary evaluation, manuscripts may be screened for originality and similarity to previously published or submitted works. The editorial team also reserves the right to evaluate concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate submission, redundant publication, citation manipulation, image integrity, authorship concerns, or other aspects of publication ethics before the manuscript proceeds to external review.
3. Assignment to Handling Editor
A manuscript that passes the initial screening is assigned to an editor or handling editor with relevant expertise. The handling editor oversees the review process, identifies appropriate reviewers, evaluates review reports, and makes a recommendation regarding the editorial decision.
Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflict of interest may affect impartial judgment.
4. Reviewer Selection
The handling editor invites independent reviewers with appropriate expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter, methodology, and scholarly context. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic competence, subject knowledge, and ability to provide objective and constructive feedback.
The journal seeks to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest that could compromise the fairness of the review process.
5. External Peer Review
Manuscripts considered suitable for external evaluation are normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as:
- originality and significance of the topic;
- relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
- clarity of research objectives or review purpose;
- adequacy and rigor of the method, design, or analytical framework;
- validity and coherence of argument, interpretation, and conclusions;
- engagement with relevant and current literature;
- contribution to theory, research, policy, practice, or further scholarly development;
- quality of writing, organization, and presentation.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments that assist both the editors in decision-making and the authors in improving the manuscript.
6. Editorial Decision
After considering the reviewer reports and the handling editor’s assessment, the journal will communicate one of the following decisions to the author(s):
- Accept
- Minor Revisions
- Major Revisions
- Reject
The final decision is made by the Editorial Team on the basis of the manuscript’s scholarly merit, reviewer feedback, and editorial judgment. The journal is not bound to accept a manuscript solely because one or more reviewers have recommended acceptance.
7. Revision Process
Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to revise the manuscript carefully and submit:
- a revised version of the manuscript; and
- a response document explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
Authors should respond to all comments clearly, respectfully, and point by point. Where an author disagrees with a reviewer’s suggestion, the response should provide a reasoned academic justification.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
8. Final Decision
A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the Editorial Team is satisfied that all substantive scholarly, ethical, and editorial concerns have been addressed appropriately. Acceptance is based on overall quality and suitability for the journal and may be subject to final editorial, copyediting, and formatting review.
9. Confidentiality
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial comments, and related correspondence are treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed, discussed, or used for personal advantage by editors, reviewers, or editorial staff, except as necessary for legitimate editorial and publishing purposes.
10. Conflict of Interest in Peer Review
Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that may affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their judgment. In such cases, they must decline involvement in the review or editorial handling of the manuscript.
11. Ethical Expectations for Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
- maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review materials;
- provide objective, professional, and constructive comments;
- complete reviews within the agreed timeframe where possible;
- identify relevant published work not cited by the authors where appropriate;
- alert the editor to substantial overlap, ethical concerns, or possible misconduct if detected.
12. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant misunderstanding, procedural concern, or clear evaluative error may submit a reasoned appeal to the journal. Appeals will be considered by the Editorial Team in accordance with the journal’s editorial procedures. The submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.
13. Post-Acceptance Processing
Accepted manuscripts proceed to editorial preparation, copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final publication. Minor editorial changes may be made to improve clarity, consistency, grammar, style, and formatting, without altering the scholarly substance of the work.
The journal is committed to preserving the integrity, fairness, and academic quality of the peer review process as a central part of responsible scholarly publishing.
