Peer Review Process

This journal is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and ethically conducted research through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and independent peer review process. The Journal operates a double-anonymized peer review system, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the editorial process to ensure impartiality, objectivity, and academic integrity.

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, significance, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the Journal, without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or other personal characteristics.

Peer Review Process

  1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
  • Every submitted manuscript should undergo a desk review by the relevant Section Editor. During this screening, the manuscript is assessed to determine its suitability for external review and subsequent publication, compliance with the Instructions for Authors, and adherence to the Journal's editorial and ethical policies, including the Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy, Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.
  • This preliminary screening also considers the manuscript's originality, novelty, theoretical and practical contribution, methodological rigor, quality of presentation, and alignment with the aims and scope of the Journal. Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements or fail to demonstrate sufficient scholarly merit may be rejected without external peer review. The average time for completion of the initial editorial assessment is 7-14 days from the date of submission.
  1. External Double-Anonymized Review

      Under the Journal's double-blind review model:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity or affiliation of authors.
  • Manuscripts that complete the initial editorial screening are ordinarily assigned by the Editor-in-Chief for independent external peer review. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers, ordinarily selected from different institutions and, where practicable, from different countries, who possess recognized expertise and an established research profile in the relevant subject area.
  • The average time for completion of the external peer review process is 45 days, although the actual duration may vary depending upon reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

Manuscript Preparation for Double-Anonymized Review

To preserve the integrity of the double-anonymized peer review process, authors are required to submit two separate files.

  • Title Page: The Title Page must include the manuscript title, full names of all authors, institutional affiliations, ORCID iDs, email IDs, funding information, conflict of interest declarations, acknowledgements (if applicable), and the complete contact details of the corresponding author.
  • Anonymized Manuscript: The anonymized manuscript must contain the complete scholarly content, including the title, abstract, keywords, JET classification codes, main text, references, tables, figures, and appendices (where applicable), but must not include any information that could directly or indirectly identify the authors, their affiliations, or funding sources, thereby preserving the integrity of the double-anonymized peer review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based evaluations of the manuscript, taking into consideration its originality, contribution to knowledge, theoretical and practical significance, methodological soundness, analytical quality, interpretation of findings, engagement with relevant literature, ethical compliance, and overall suitability for publication.

Editorial Independence and Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are based solely on the manuscript's scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the Journal's scope, compliance with ethical standards, and reviewers' recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for all editorial decisions. Publication charges, waiver status, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or other non-scholarly considerations do not influence editorial decisions.

Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

Where potential concerns relating to plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, citation manipulation, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, or undisclosed AI-generated content are identified, the editorial process may be suspended while the matter is investigated in accordance with the Journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.

Publication Timeline

Upon receipt of the peer review reports, the corresponding author shall submit a revised manuscript that appropriately addresses the reviewers' recommendations and editorial comments, or provides a well-reasoned scholarly justification where a recommendation is not adopted. A detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer comments and editorial requirements must accompany the revised submission within the stipulated timeframe.

Following the Editorial Office's acceptance of the revised manuscript, the average publication timeline is approximately 60 days, subject to editorial and production scheduling.

Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision where they consider that the decision was materially affected by a significant factual error or procedural irregularity. Appeals shall be reviewed impartially and independently in accordance with the Journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy. The submission of an appeal does not confer an entitlement to reconsideration or reversal of the original editorial decision.

 

Policy Compliance and Review

JIRMS conducts peer review in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the COPE Core Practices, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by DOAJ, COPE, and OASPA. The Journal periodically reviews its peer-review procedures to ensure continued alignment with internationally recognized best practices.