Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Managerial Sciences (JMS), published by Qurtuba University of Science & Information Technology, Pakistan, is an international, quarterly, open-access scholarly journal committed to maintaining rigorous standards of academic quality, research integrity, editorial independence, and ethical scholarly publishing.

JMS follows a double-blind peer-review process for research manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. The peer-review system is designed to ensure that publication decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, significance, and relevance of the manuscript rather than the identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, or other personal characteristics of the authors.

  1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process serves to:

  • assess the originality and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts;
  • evaluate the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the research;
  • assess the appropriateness and rigor of research methodology;
  • verify the validity and clarity of analysis, results, and conclusions;
  • identify significant weaknesses, errors, omissions, or unsupported claims;
  • improve the academic quality and clarity of manuscripts;
  • ensure that published research is relevant to the journal's aims and scope; and
  • support fair, transparent, and evidence-based editorial decision-making.
  1. Initial Editorial/Desk Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JMS are subject to an initial editorial screening before external peer review.

The editorial office may assess:

  • conformity with the journal's aims and scope;
  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;
  • basic methodological and academic quality;
  • compliance with submission requirements;
  • ethical and research-integrity requirements;
  • plagiarism/similarity concerns;
  • completeness of required declarations; and
  • whether the manuscript meets the minimum standards necessary for external review.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum scholarly requirements, contain serious ethical concerns, or are otherwise unsuitable may be rejected at the desk-review stage without external peer review.

A desk rejection is an editorial decision and does not imply misconduct by the authors.

  1. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Reviewers should have:

  • relevant academic or professional expertise in the manuscript's subject area;
  • appropriate scholarly or research experience;
  • no known conflict of interest with the authors or the research;
  • no inappropriate personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship with the authors; and
  • sufficient independence to provide an objective assessment.

The journal may use reviewers from different institutions, countries, and academic backgrounds to strengthen the independence and diversity of the review process.

Reviewer selection is the responsibility of the Editor/Editorial Team. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to use suggested reviewers.

  1. Double-Blind Review

JMS uses double-blind peer review.

Under this system:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
  • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers;
  • reviewer identities are not disclosed in published articles;
  • manuscripts sent to reviewers are anonymized as far as reasonably possible.

Authors are therefore required to submit:

  1. a Title Page containing author names, affiliations, correspondence details, funding information and acknowledgements, where applicable; and
  2. a Blinded Manuscript containing no identifying author information.

Authors should also remove identifying information from file names and document properties and avoid unnecessary self-identifying statements in the manuscript.

  1. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • disclose the manuscript or its contents to any third party;
  • share the manuscript without authorization from the Editor;
  • use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal advantage;
  • use information from the manuscript to advance their own research or publication;
  • contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript; or
  • discuss the manuscript or review with others without permission from the Editor.

The confidentiality obligation continues after completion of the review.

  1. Reviewer Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.

A reviewer should decline the assignment where:

  • they have a close personal or professional relationship with an author;
  • they work in the same institution or closely affiliated organization;
  • they have recently collaborated with an author;
  • they have a financial or commercial interest related to the research;
  • they have a direct competitive or adversarial relationship with an author;
  • they have another relationship that could reasonably compromise impartiality; or
  • they believe they cannot provide an objective assessment.

The Editor may withdraw a reviewer from the process if a conflict of interest becomes apparent.

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive, evidence-based and professional assessment.

Reviewers should evaluate, where applicable:

  • originality and novelty;
  • significance of the research problem;
  • clarity of research objectives/questions/hypotheses;
  • adequacy of the literature review;
  • theoretical/conceptual framework;
  • appropriateness of research design;
  • sampling and data-collection procedures;
  • validity and reliability of instruments;
  • appropriateness of statistical or qualitative analysis;
  • accuracy and clarity of results;
  • consistency between results and conclusions;
  • contribution to theory and/or practice;
  • limitations of the study;
  • quality and relevance of references;
  • ethical compliance;
  • clarity of presentation and academic writing; and
  • overall contribution to the field.

Reviewers should distinguish between major substantive concerns and minor editorial or presentation issues.

  1. Reviewer Reports

A reviewer report should normally contain:

  1. Overall assessment

A concise evaluation of the manuscript's academic quality and contribution.

  1. Major comments

Substantive issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

  1. Minor comments

Issues relating to clarity, presentation, terminology, references, tables, figures, grammar, or other relatively minor matters.

  1. Recommendation

The reviewer should recommend one of the following:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

The recommendation must be supported by comments explaining the basis of the recommendation.

  1. Academic Decision-Making

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief/Editor or authorized Editorial Board member, not with individual reviewers.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor considers:

  • reviewer reports;
  • the manuscript's scholarly quality;
  • methodological rigor;
  • originality and contribution;
  • ethical considerations;
  • journal scope;
  • consistency of reviewer assessments; and
  • the overall editorial assessment.

The Editor may seek an additional review where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict or where specialist expertise is required.

  1. Possible Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept:
The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes or only editorial corrections.

Minor Revision:
The manuscript is potentially publishable subject to limited revisions.

Major Revision:
Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers.

Reject:
The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

  1. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  1. a revised version of the manuscript; and
  2. a detailed response to reviewers explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify changes made in the revised manuscript where requested by the editorial office.

The Editor may return a revised manuscript to the original reviewers for further assessment.

  1. Reviewer Disagreement

Where reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Editor may:

  • evaluate the reports and make an editorial decision;
  • request clarification from a reviewer;
  • obtain an additional independent review; or
  • refer the manuscript to an appropriate member of the Editorial Board.

The journal does not make publication decisions solely by counting reviewer recommendations.

  1. Ethical and Research-Integrity Concerns

If a reviewer identifies a potential concern involving:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • manipulated images or results;
  • inappropriate authorship;
  • undisclosed conflict of interest;
  • unethical research involving human or animal participants; or
  • other forms of research or publication misconduct,

the reviewer should confidentially notify the Editor and provide supporting information where possible.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct.

The Editor will handle such matters according to the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity policies and applicable recognized scholarly publishing standards.

  1. Reviewer Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or manuscript content to publicly accessible generative-AI systems or other third-party tools where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their review reports.

Any use of technological or AI-assisted tools must not compromise the confidentiality of the manuscript or the independence of the review process.

  1. Reviewer Recognition

JMS may maintain an internal record of completed peer reviews and may acknowledge reviewers collectively, subject to reviewer consent and preservation of reviewer anonymity.

Individual reviewer identities will not be disclosed to authors as part of the double-blind review process.

  1. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations and must not be influenced by:

  • commercial interests;
  • advertising;
  • publication fees;
  • institutional pressure;
  • personal relationships;
  • political considerations;
  • nationality, gender, religion, ethnicity, or institutional affiliation of authors; or
  • the potential commercial value of a manuscript.

Payment of any publication or processing charge does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

  • a significant error occurred in the review process;
  • a relevant reviewer conflict of interest was not considered;
  • the decision was based on demonstrably incorrect information; or
  • important aspects of the manuscript were not appropriately considered.

An appeal must provide a clear and reasoned explanation and should address the specific basis of the decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated independent editorial authority will review the appeal. The journal may seek an additional independent assessment where appropriate.

Editorial decisions following a properly conducted review process are normally final.

  1. Reviewer Misconduct

The journal considers the following to constitute reviewer misconduct:

  • breach of confidentiality;
  • use of unpublished information for personal benefit;
  • inappropriate disclosure of reviewer identity;
  • discriminatory, abusive, or offensive comments;
  • intentional obstruction of publication;
  • misappropriation of authors' ideas or findings;
  • reviewing a manuscript despite a significant undisclosed conflict of interest; or
  • submitting a review prepared by another person without authorization.

Where reviewer misconduct is identified, JMS may discontinue the review assignment, remove the reviewer from its reviewer database, and take other appropriate action.

  1. Record Keeping and Audit Trail

The journal maintains appropriate editorial records of the peer-review process, including:

  • manuscript submission and identification information;
  • dates of editorial screening;
  • reviewer invitations;
  • reviewer acceptances/declinations;
  • reviewer reports;
  • editorial decisions;
  • author revisions and responses; and
  • relevant correspondence.

These records are maintained to support transparency, accountability, quality assurance, and auditability of the editorial process.

Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with the journal's double-blind review policy.

  1. Continuous Review of the Policy

JMS periodically reviews its peer-review procedures to ensure continued alignment with internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing, research integrity, open-access publishing, and the requirements of relevant indexing and abstracting services.

The journal may update this policy when necessary to reflect developments in scholarly publishing and best practices.