PEER REVIEW POLICY

Journal of Multidisciplinary Business Research (JMBR) undertakes Open Peer Review (OPR) in all its articles. OPR is a transparent evaluation method in scholarly publishing, wherein the identities of peer reviewers are disclosed to authors and often to the public as well. Additionally, in OPR, the peer review reports are published alongside the journal article, providing readers with insights into the evaluation process.

Key Concepts of Open Peer Review:

Transparency: OPR promotes transparency by disclosing reviewer identities and review reports to authors and sometimes to the public. This transparency enhances accountability and trust in the peer review process.

Reviewer Accountability: Disclosing reviewer identities holds reviewers accountable for their evaluations, encouraging fair and constructive feedback while reducing the likelihood of bias or misconduct.

Constructive Feedback: OPR encourages reviewers to provide thoughtful and constructive feedback aimed at improving the quality and validity of submitted manuscripts. Authors benefit from transparent insights into reviewers' assessments.

Public Accessibility: In some forms of OPR, review reports and reviewer identities are made publicly accessible, allowing for greater scrutiny and participation from the broader academic community.

Ethical Conduct: OPR emphasizes ethical conduct among reviewers, who are expected to maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and provide objective evaluations based on scholarly merit.

Inclusion of Review Reports: One distinctive feature of OPR is that peer review reports are published alongside the journal article, providing readers with additional context and insights into the evaluation process.

Decision Making: Editors consider reviewer feedback to make informed decisions on manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection. OPR allows authors to respond to reviewer comments and revise their work accordingly.

In summary, OPR represents a paradigm shift in scholarly publishing, promoting transparency, accountability, and constructive engagement in the peer review process, with the added feature of publishing review reports alongside the journal article.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process includes the following steps: 1) Desktop/Editorial Office Review, 2) Allocation of Peer Reviewers (External), 3) Peer Review Process, 4) Editorial Decision, and 5) Possible Editorial Decisions.

Step 1; Editorial Office Review

At the editorial office, the Desktop/Editorial Office Review will be conducted through the following steps:

Plagiarism check using Turnitin software, ensuring similarity is not more than 15% excluding reference lists and matches to the writer's university affiliation.

Verification of compliance with APA 7 citation style for both parenthetical and narrative in-text citations.

Ensuring all in-text citations appear in the reference list and vice versa.

Checking the manuscript's adherence to the journal's scope and format requirements.

Step 2: Allocation of Peer Reviewers (External)

Following the Desktop/Editorial Office Review, manuscripts progress to the Allocation of Peer Reviewers (External) stage, where two distinct types of experts are sought:

Data Analysis/Research Methods Expert

Plays a critical role in evaluating the statistical validity and methodological rigor of the research. This reviewer thoroughly examines various aspects of the research, including the appropriateness of the research design, statistical analyses, data interpretation, and adherence to best practices in data analysis and research methodology.

Specifically, they assess the suitability of statistical software and tools utilized, research philosophies employed, the robustness of research designs, the relevance of target population and sampling methods, the effectiveness of data collection techniques, and the appropriateness of analysis methods and result interpretation.

Subject Matter Expert

Evaluates various aspects of the manuscript's content, including the statement of the problem, theoretical framework, literature review, empirical findings, practical implications, conclusions, and recommendations. They assess the originality, significance, and contribution of the research to the existing body of knowledge within the field.

Specifically, they examine the coherence, relevance, and alignment of the theoretical framework with the identified problem, the breadth, depth, and appropriateness of the literature review, and the relevance, validity, and implications of the empirical findings.

Furthermore, they critically analyze the theoretical and practical implications of the study, considering its potential impact on advancing theoretical understanding and informing real-world applications. Through detailed feedback, the Subject Matter Expert aims to enhance the quality and scholarly contribution of the manuscript while providing valuable insights for future research directions.

Stage 3: Editorial Decisions

The editor will collate the feedback from peer reviewers to make any of the below decisons;

  1. Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal of Multidisciplinary Business Research (JMBR) without requiring any further revisions.

  2. Minor revisions: The manuscript is considered acceptable for publication, but some minor revisions or clarifications are needed before final acceptance. These revisions may involve addressing specific points raised by the peer reviewers or editorial office.

  3. Major revisions: The manuscript shows promise but requires significant revisions, such as restructuring, additional analyses, or clarification of arguments before it can be accepted for publication. This decision implies that substantial changes are necessary for the manuscript to meet the journal's standards.

  4. Reject with option to resubmit: The manuscript is not accepted for publication in its current form but could be revised and resubmitted for another round of review. This decision indicates that while the manuscript has potential, significant improvements are needed before it can be reconsidered for publication.

  5. Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal due to various reasons, such as lack of novelty, poor methodology, or failure to meet the journal's scope or standards. This decision implies that the manuscript does not meet the necessary criteria for acceptance and is not suitable for further consideration.