Reviewers

  1. Peer Review Process

JSMS employs a rigorous double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process that matches a reviewer's expertise to the submitted manuscript and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented.

Our vision is to amplify diverse professional voices in the subject areas (Society and Management Studies), fostering a platform for innovative, contextually relevant research and diverse perspectives that inform theory, practices, and policy globally in the field. JSMS’s peer review process upholds excellence, integrity, and rigor in scholarly publication and research by ensuring that every manuscript is carefully evaluated by experts and that authors receive constructive, critical, and evidence-based feedback that strengthens the quality of their work.

JSMS peer-review values:

  • Diversity of perspectives from academics and practitioners across regions, sectors, and organisational contexts.
  • Respectful and constructive dialogue, ensuring feedback enhances the manuscript without personal criticism.
  • Ethical responsibility in maintaining confidentiality and integrity throughout the review process.

Ethical Standards

  • All manuscripts, abstracts, and reviews are strictly confidential.
  • Reviewers are prohibited from sharing information about manuscripts, peer reviews, or the review process with any third party without explicit editorial approval, even after publication.
  • Reviewer comments must be objective, unbiased, and focused solely on the scholarly quality and contribution of the manuscript.
  • Conflicts of interest must be declared, and reviewers with potential conflicts are recused from evaluating the manuscript.

Desk Review

  1. Upon submission, manuscripts are first screened by the editor-in-chief or managing editors to assess:
    • Fit with the journal’s scope, thematic focus, and conceptual framework
    • Overall quality, clarity, and adherence to submission guidelines
  2. Manuscripts outside the scope are rejected at this stage, with authors provided a clear rationale and, where appropriate, recommendations for alternative publication venues.
  3. Manuscripts that are promising but require alignment with JSMS guidelines are returned with detailed instructions for resubmission.

Peer Review Assignment

  • Manuscripts passing desk review are sent to at least two independent experts in the field.
  • At least one reviewer is external to the journal’s editorial board/country to ensure objectivity and breadth of expertise.
  • Reviewer selection considers subject-matter expertise, methodological competence, and familiarity with the research context.

Double-Anonymity (Double Blind-Review)

  • Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
  • Reviewer reports provide recommendations on acceptability: (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, and Reject)
  • Editors synthesise feedback from reviewers to make the final editorial decision.

Timeline

The peer review process is designed to balance thorough evaluation with timely communication and typically spans approximately four months from submission to acceptance:

  • Acknowledgment of submission: Immediate automated email to the corresponding author.
  • Desk review and editorial scrutiny: 7–10 days for assessing scope, quality, and initial suitability.
  • Assignment to reviewers: 3–5 days for sending the manuscript to at least two independent experts.
  • Peer review duration: 35–45 days, depending on reviewer availability, for detailed and constructive feedback.
  • Author revision period: Up to 10–30 days for incorporating reviewer comments and resubmitting the manuscript (minor Changes) and 90 days for major changes.
  • Final reviewer evaluation (if required): 10–15 days for reviewers to assess revisions.
  • Expert editorial scrutiny and final decision: 10–15 days to synthesise feedback, ensure rigorous assessment, and communicate the final decision.

Publication

  • Accepted manuscripts are first published online for immediate access and global dissemination and are subsequently included in the print edition of the journal. The accepted articles are typically typeset and published in their final form within 20 - 30 business days of final acceptance.

Continuous Quality Assurance

  • All peer reviews are evaluated for thoroughness, constructiveness, and scholarly engagement.
  • Editors maintain oversight to ensure consistency, fairness, and alignment with JSMS’s mission.
  • JSMS periodically reviews its peer review process to incorporate global best practices, ensuring that the process remains transparent, fair, and aligned with the highest standards of scholarly publishing.

2. Reviewer Guidelines 

a) Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

The JSMS follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical double-blind peer review process, consistent with the COPE Core Practices and international scholarly publishing standards.

All submitted manuscripts undergo the following stages:

  • Initial Technical and Editorial Screening: Upon submission, the Managing Editor and Editorial Office conduct a technical and policy compliance check (scope, formatting, plagiarism screening, ethical declarations).
  • Editorial Pre-Assessment: A suitable Academic Editor or Editorial Board Member evaluates the manuscript for scholarly relevance, originality, methodological soundness, and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. At this stage, the manuscript may be:
    • Sent for peer review
    • Returned for revision before review
    • Desk-rejected with justification
  • Peer Review: Manuscripts passing editorial screening are reviewed by at least two independent experts with relevant subject-matter expertise.
  • Revision and Re-review (if required): Authors are required to address reviewer comments thoroughly. Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of review where necessary.
  • Final Decision: The final publication decision is made by the Academic Editor or Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer recommendations and editorial judgment.
  • Post-Acceptance Processing: Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copy-editing and language polishing before publication.

b) Reviewer Profile and Eligibility 

Reviewers for JSMS are selected based on academic merit, expertise, and ethical standing. Reviewers must:

  • Hold a PhD, equivalent doctoral qualification, MPhil Scholar, and emerging early career researchers (ECR)
  • Hold a teaching or research position at a university or academic institution
  • Have a demonstrated publication record in the journal thematic areas.
  • Have a strong interest in the scholarly journal
  • Have no conflict of interest with the authors
  • Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors
  • Not have co-authored with the authors within the previous three years
  • Be familiar with peer-review norms and publication ethics
  • Be fluent in academic and professional English

c) Guidelines for Writing Review Reports 

Review reports should be clear, structured, and constructive, written in professional English.

Review reports should include:

  • Brief Summary: A concise overview of the manuscript’s purpose, contribution, and strengths.
  • General Comments: Evaluation of the manuscript’s overall quality, relevance, originality, and contribution.
  • Major Comments: Issues related to theory, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, or conceptual framing.
  • Minor Comments: Suggestions related to clarity, organisation, presentation, or referencing.

Reviewers should:

  • Avoid excessive self-citation requests
  • Base critiques on scholarly reasoning
  • Distinguish clearly between major and minor issues

d) Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to conduct a fair, objective, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts using the structured Peer Review Form provided by the journal. Manuscripts should be assessed based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to Journal Scope: Alignment with the aims, scope, and thematic focus of the JSMS.
  • Title and Abstract Quality: Clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the title and abstract in representing the study’s objectives, methods, and key findings.
  • Introduction and Problem Framing: Clear articulation of the research problem, motivation, objectives, and significance of the study.
  • Originality and Scholarly Contribution: Novelty of the research and its contribution to theory, practice, or policy in Society and Management Studies.  
  • Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation: Adequacy, relevance, and critical engagement with existing literature; clarity of theoretical grounding and conceptual framework.
  • Methodological Rigor and Transparency: Appropriateness and rigor of research design, data sources, sampling, instruments, and research procedures.
  • Data Analysis and Results: Suitability and correctness of analytical techniques; clarity, consistency, and robustness of results.
  • Discussion and Conclusion Coherence: Logical integration of results with theory and prior studies; clarity of implications, limitations, and future research directions.
  • Ethical Standards and Research Integrity: Compliance with ethical research standards, data transparency, and academic integrity.
  • Overall Quality and Presentation: Organisation, clarity of writing, technical accuracy, and overall scholarly quality of the manuscript.

e) Recommendation

Based on the above criteria, reviewers are requested to make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject (with clear and constructive justification)

Recommendations must be supported by clear and reasoned justification.
Confidential comments to the editor may be used for sensitive or ethical concerns.

f) Recognition and Benefits for Reviewers 

JSMS values the scholarly contribution of reviewers and may offer:

  • Official Reviewer Certificates
  • Annual acknowledgment of reviewers (with consent)
  • Consideration for Reviewer Board or Editorial Board membership
  • Recognition for Outstanding Reviewers

g) Reviewer Board

The Reviewer Board consists of experienced scholars who actively support the journal by providing high-quality reviews.

  • Initial term: 2 years, renewable
  • Expected workload: minimum 4–6 reviews per year
  • Reviewer Board Members receive official certification, are acknowledged on the journal website, and may be considered for editorial roles based on performance

h) Volunteer Reviewers

Qualified scholars may apply to serve as Volunteer Reviewers.

  • Applications are assessed by the Editorial Office
  • Eligibility criteria follow Section 2
  • Active Volunteer Reviewers may be promoted to the Reviewer Board

i) Advancement and Editorial Progression

Based on review quality, timeliness, subject expertise, and sustained engagement, Reviewer Board Members:

  • May be upgraded to higher editorial roles, such as Advisory Board Member, Section Editor, Senior Editor, Associate Editor, Regional Editors, and Editorial Board Member
  • May be invited to contribute to editorial decision-making, special issues, or policy development

Advancement decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office following periodic performance evaluations.