Review

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Management: Small and Medium Enterprises (SME's) applies a peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and academic contribution of submitted manuscripts.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editor to determine their relevance to the journal's aims and scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, originality, and basic academic quality. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Peer Review Method

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. The journal normally seeks evaluations from at least two independent reviewers.

The journal applies a single-blind peer review process. The identities of reviewers are kept confidential in accordance with the journal's review policy.

3. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on their originality, relevance to the journal's scope, theoretical or conceptual contribution, appropriateness of the research methods, quality of analysis, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the relevant field.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts under review.

4. Editorial Decision

The editor makes the final decision based on the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's academic quality, and the journal's editorial standards. Possible decisions include:

- Accept.
- Accept subject to minor revisions.
- Revise and resubmit for further evaluation.
- Reject.

The journal may seek an additional review if the reviewers' recommendations differ substantially or further expert assessment is necessary.

 5. Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors required to revise their manuscripts must respond to the reviewers' comments and indicate the changes made. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

6. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and review reports as confidential. They must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Any concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate submission, or other potential research misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

7. Notification of Decisions

Authors are notified of editorial decisions through the journal's submission system or the official communication channel used by the Editorial Office. Review outcomes and comments are communicated to authors as appropriate to support transparent and constructive editorial decisions.

 

Reviewers :

Prof. Ly Fie Sugianto, PhD MIEEE MAIS [Scopus ID]

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Prof. Nadia Laaraj [Scopus ID]

Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco

Head Asist. Prof. Ventsislava Nikolova-Minkova [Scopus ID] [ResearchGate]

Technical University of Gabrovo, Bulgaria

Ts. Dr. Mohd Fahmy Abdullah [Scopus ID] [ORCID]

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn, Johor, Malaysia

Dr. Théogène Nsengiyumva [Google Scholar]

University of Burundi, Burundi

Prof. Dr. Lela Nurlaela Wati, SE.,MM [Scopus ID] [ORCID]

Universitas Teknologi Muhammadiyah Jakarta, Indonesia

Dr. Ulil Hartono, SE., M.Si [Scopus ID] [ORCID]

Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

Dr. Ferikawita M. Sembiring, SE., M.Si [Scopus ID] [ORCID]

Universitas Jendral Achmad Yani, Cimahi, Indonesia

Dr. Farida Titik Kristanti,SE.,M.Si [Scopus ID] [ORCID]

Telkom University, Bandung, Indonesia

Prof. Jappy P. Fanggidae, SE., MBA., PhD [Scopus ID] [ORCID]

Politeknik Negeri Kupang, Kupang, Indonesia

Dr. Alexandre Desousa Guterres  lic.,Eco.,MM [Google Scholar]

Universidade da Paz, Dili, Timor Leste

Dr. Oksana Razladova  [ResearchGate] [Google Scholar]

Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Noor Fadzlin Binti Abu Bakar [Google Scholar]

Politeknik Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan,  Malaysia

Janisleydis Rodriguez Alarcon [Google Scholar]

University of Havana, Cuba

Yana Respati Dewi, SE., MM [Google Scholar]

Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia 

Dr. Dwi Putra Buana Sakti, SE., MM [Google Scholar] [Scopus ID]

Universitas Mataram, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia

Dr. Adriana M Marampa, SE., MM [Scopus ID] [Google Scholar]

Universitas Kristen Indonesia Toraja, Indonesia

Dr. Rolland E. Fanggidae, SSi., MM [Scopus ID] [ORCID]

Universitas Nusa Cendana, Kupang, Indonesia

Mariana Ing Malelak.,S.E.,M.SM.,M.Rech [Google Scholar] [Scopus ID]

Universitas Kristen Petra Surabaya, Indonesia

Dr. Xie Qiong [Scopus ID]

Gannan Normal University, China

 

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

 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.

Reviewer Impropriety:

  • 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