Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Management Research & Innovation (IJMRI) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure that all published research meets the highest standards of academic quality, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution. Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and advancing management knowledge.

1
Initial Check

Format, scope, and ethics compliance check

2
Editorial Assessment

Suitability and originality evaluation

3
Peer Review

Sent to >2 independent experts

4
Decision

Editor consolidates feedback and makes decision

5
Revision

Authors submit revised manuscript

Commitment to Quality Review

IJMRI is committed to:

  • Fair and unbiased evaluation of all submissions
Timely and constructive review processesTransparency in editorial decision-makingSupport for both authors and reviewersContinuous improvement of review proceduresEthical conduct throughout the publication process

Double Blind Peer Review

Authors Do Not Know:

  • Who is reviewing their manuscript
  • Reviewers' identities remain confidential
  • Author-reviewer anonymity promotes objectivity

Reviewers Do Not Know:

  • Who wrote the manuscript
  • Authors' identities, institutions, or affiliations
  • Reduces potential for bias

How It Works:

  • Authors submit manuscripts without identifying information in main document
  • Editorial office removes any remaining identifying details
  • Manuscripts sent to reviewers without author information
  • Reviewers evaluate based solely on scientific merit
  • Reduces potential for bias
  • Authors' identities, institutions, or affiliations
  • Identities protected throughout process

Review Process Timeline

Week 1-2: Initial Editorial Screening

  • Managing Editor reviews for basic compliance
  • Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor assesses fit and quality
  • Decision: Send for review or desk reject
  • Notification to authors

Double Blind Peer Review

Authors Do Not Know:

  • Who is reviewing their manuscript
  • Reviewers' identities remain confidential
  • Author-reviewer anonymity promotes objectivity

Week 3-8: Peer Review

  • Manuscript assigned to 2-3 independent expert reviewers
  • Reviewers invited (48-hour response requested)
  • Reviewers submit evaluations (3-4 week deadline)
  • Reminders sent if reviews delayed
  • Additional reviewers sought if needed

Week 9-10: Editorial Decision

  • Editor synthesizes reviewer comments
  • May consult with editorial board
  • Makes recommendation based on reviews and own assessment
  • Decision
  • Authors notified via email

If Revisions Requested:

  • Authors given 4-8 weeks to revise (depending on extent)
  • Revised manuscript resubmitted with response letter
  • May go to original reviewers or new reviewers
  • Process repeats until accepted or rejected

Note: Total Time to First Decision: Typically 6-10 weeks Total Time to Publication (if accepted): 12-20 weeks from initial submission