We are committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted papers in Journal of Management (SME's). To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo a rigorous process. All articles will be reviewed by the editor and will be distributed to peer reviewers by BLIND REVIEW method
Assoc Prof. Ly Fie Sugianto, PhD MIEEE MAIS [Scopus ID]
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Prof. Nadia Laaraj, PhD [Scopus ID]
Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco
Technical University of Gabrovo, Bulgaria
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn, Johor, Malaysia
Dr Théogène Nsengiyumva [Google Scholar]
University of Burundi, Burundi
STIE Muhamadiah Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia
Universitas Jendral Achmad Yani, Cimahi, Indonesia
Telkom University, Bandung, Indonesia
Politeknik Negeri Kupang, Kupang, Indonesia
Dr. Alexandre Desousa Guterres lic.,Eco.,MM [Google Scholar]
Universidade da Paz, Dili, Timor Leste
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Dr. Noor Fadzlin Binti Abu Bakar, MoM.BBA (hons) [Google Scholar]
Politeknik Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
Janisleydis Rodriguez Alarcon, MBA [Google Scholar]
University of Havana, Cuba
Universitas Mataram, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia
Universitas Kristen Indonesia Toraja, Indonesia
Universitas Nusa Cendana, Kupang, Indonesia
Universitas Kristen Petra Surabaya, Indonesia
Characteristics of the peer review process are as follows:
- Simultaneous submissions of the same manuscript to different journals will not be tolerated.
- Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
Depending on individual journal policy, submissions usually will be refereed by 2 experts as suggested by the editorial board.
Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be informed when Editors decide further review is required.
- All publication decisions are made by the journal's Editors-in-Chief on the basis of the referees' reports.
- Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.
Editors and reviewers involved in the review process should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors.
- Our peer review process is confidential and identities of reviewers cannot be revealed.
Reviewer responsibilities toward authors
Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion
Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers
- Avoiding personal comments or criticism
Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper
Reviewer responsibilities toward editors
Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the names of potential other reviewers
Alerting the editor about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility of a conflict exists
Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review
Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author
Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful
Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal which may be known to the reviewer
- Refraining from direct author contact
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Confidentiality: Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless necessary and approved by the editor.
Constructive critique: Reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed.
Competence: Reviewers who realize that their expertise is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Reviewers need not be expert in every aspect of an article’s content, but they should accept an assignment only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment.
Impartiality and integrity: Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on the relevance to the journal’s scope and mission, without regard to race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, or citizenship of the authors.
Disclosure of conflict of interest: To the extent possible, the review system should be designed to minimize actual or perceived bias on the reviewer’s part. If reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of interest to the editor and ask how best to address it.
Timeliness and responsiveness: Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and submitting it in a timely manner.
- Misrepresenting facts in a review
- Unreasonably delaying the review process
- Unfairly criticizing a competitor’s work
- Breaching the confidentiality of the review
- Proposing changes that appear to merely support the reviewer’s own work or hypotheses
- Making use of confidential information to achieve personal or professional gain
- Using ideas or text from a manuscript under review
- Including personal or ad hominem criticism of the author(s)
- Failing to disclose a conflict of interest that would have excluded the reviewer from the process