Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Applies to: all 6 EP Journals Group journals.
Effective: 1 May 2026, version 1.0.

1. Type of review

Journal of Management Research and Review uses double-blind peer review for every research article it publishes. Authors do not know who reviewed their submission; reviewers do not know who the authors are. Identifying information (author names, affiliations, acknowledgements that hint at identity, self-citations that are visible without anonymization) is removed by the editorial office before the manuscript is sent to reviewers. Authors are asked to anonymize their submission file at upload, and the editorial office checks this at the desk-screening stage.

We use the same double-blind process for special-issue articles, including those handled by guest editors. We do not run an open or single-blind review track.

2. The path a submission takes

This is the actual sequence each submission follows in OJS:

Step 1 — Submission. The corresponding author uploads the manuscript via the journal's OJS site at jmrr.ep-journals.org/index.php/[slug]/about/submissions. They enter metadata, upload an anonymized manuscript file plus a separate title page, declare conflicts of interest, declare any AI tool use, and confirm the manuscript is original and not under simultaneous review elsewhere.

Step 2 — Desk screening (target: 5 working days). A Section Editor checks scope fit, manuscript completeness, anonymization, plagiarism similarity (we run iThenticate via Crossref Similarity Check; see the Plagiarism Policy), and obvious quality issues. The Section Editor either desk-rejects with reasons, returns the manuscript for revisions before review, or assigns it for external peer review.

Step 3 — Reviewer selection (target: 10 working days). The Section Editor identifies and invites at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's topic and methodology. We aim for reviewers whose institutions, current collaborators, and recent co-authors do not overlap with the authors. We avoid reviewers from the same institution as any of the authors.

Step 4 — Peer review (target: 4–6 weeks). Reviewers complete a structured review form (significance, originality, methodology, clarity of writing, ethical considerations, recommendation). They have 4 weeks initially, with one reminder at 2 weeks, and may be given an extension on request. If a reviewer drops out, we recruit a replacement.

Step 5 — Editorial decision (target: 1–2 weeks after reviews are in). The Section Editor synthesizes the reviews and makes a recommendation: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject. The Editor-in-Chief reviews and finalizes every accept/reject decision. Where the two reviewers disagree substantially, the Section Editor either invites a third reviewer or makes the call themselves with the Editor-in-Chief's confirmation.

Step 6 — Revisions and re-review. Authors receive the decision letter with the full text of both reviewer reports. Major revisions usually go back to the original reviewers. Minor revisions are typically handled by the Section Editor alone. Authors are given 6 weeks to revise; longer if requested.

Step 7 — Acceptance, copy-editing, production. Once accepted, the article enters copy-editing, typesetting, DOI registration, and publication. The APC invoice is sent at this stage. Production turnaround is normally 2–3 weeks.

Total typical time from submission to first decision: 6–8 weeks. Articles requiring specialist methodological review or those submitted in periods of high volume may take up to 12 weeks. We notify authors if we anticipate exceeding 12 weeks.

3. What we ask of reviewers

Reviewers are asked to:

  • declare any conflict of interest before agreeing to review (recent co-authorship, recent collaboration, institutional overlap, personal relationship, or competing research agenda)
  • assess the manuscript on its scholarly merit, methodology, originality, and clarity, not on alignment with the reviewer's own theoretical preferences
  • write constructive comments suitable for sharing with the author (separate from any confidential comments to the editor)
  • complete the review within the agreed window and ask for an extension if needed
  • not use generative AI or large-language models to draft, summarize, or augment their review (see the AI Policy)
  • treat the manuscript as confidential — not share it, not cite it, not use it as a basis for the reviewer's own work — until publication

We send each reviewer a copy of the Reviewer Guidelines at the time of invitation.

4. Editorial independence

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for all final acceptance/rejection decisions. Section Editors handle initial screening and reviewer selection. The publisher (EP Journals Group) does not influence specific editorial decisions: marketing, indexing, and APC operations are kept administratively separate from the editorial workflow.

The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors are appointed by the journal's Editorial Board with the publisher's agreement. They serve renewable two-year terms.

5. Conflicts of interest

We require authors, reviewers, and editors to declare conflicts of interest. The standard categories are: recent co-authorship (within 4 years), institutional affiliation overlap, financial relationships, personal relationships, and competing research agendas.

Where an editor has a conflict on a specific manuscript, that manuscript is reassigned to another editor. The Editor-in-Chief recuses from any decision involving a manuscript they co-authored or that comes from a close collaborator. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a recurring conflict (e.g., a long-term collaborator's lab is a frequent submitter), the Editorial Board appoints an alternate editor to handle those manuscripts.

Where a reviewer fails to declare a relevant conflict, and this comes to light after publication, we follow COPE guidance and may issue a correction or, in severe cases, a retraction.

6. Special issues

Special issues are run by guest editors invited by the Editor-in-Chief. We follow these rules for special issues:

  • The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for all special-issue content, including reviewing and approving the special-issue scope before any call for papers goes out.
  • Every special-issue article goes through the same external double-blind review as a regular submission.
  • Where a guest editor is a co-author of a paper in their own special issue, that paper is reassigned to a different editor (typically a Section Editor or the Editor-in-Chief), and the guest editor is excluded from any editorial decision about it.
  • Guest-editor-authored papers may not exceed 25% of the total special-issue article count.
  • Guest editors' credentials (institutional affiliation, publication record, expertise relevance) are confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief before the special issue is approved.
  • All special-issue articles are clearly labeled as such on their landing page and in the issue table of contents.

7. Endogeny limits

In line with DOAJ requirements, no more than 25% of articles in any two consecutive issues of Journal of Management Research and Review will be authored or co-authored by an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or member of the journal's editorial team. Where the journal uses a continuous-publication model rather than discrete issues, the same 25% limit applies to articles published within a calendar year (with a minimum of 5 articles per year).

We track this internally and the Editor-in-Chief reviews the figure before each issue closes.

8. Appeals and complaints

Authors who believe their submission was treated unfairly may appeal an editorial decision. Appeals are sent to editor@jmrr.ep-journals.org with the manuscript ID and a clear statement of the basis for appeal (procedural error, evidence that a reviewer had an undeclared conflict, factual error in the editorial decision letter). Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, or — if the Editor-in-Chief made the original decision — by another member of the Editorial Board.

Appeals are resolved within 30 working days. The outcome of an appeal can be: original decision upheld, original decision reversed, manuscript sent for additional review, or referred to an external arbiter where the case is unusually complex. We do not enter further correspondence after the appeal is decided.

For complaints about reviewer or editor conduct, send to ethics@ep-journals.org.

9. Documentation we keep

Every submission generates a record in OJS that includes: the original submission, all revisions, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, correspondence with the author, and the final published article. This record is retained for at least 10 years after publication. Authors may request a copy of their own submission record at any time.

Effective: 1 May 2026 (v1.0).
Editorial contact: editor@jmrr.ep-journals.org
Publisher: EP Journals Group · https://www.ep-journals.org