Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Applied Business and International Management (IJABIM) applies a rigorous editorial assessment and double-blind peer-review process to research manuscripts submitted for publication. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the submission. Reviewers provide scholarly recommendations to assist the Editor in evaluating the originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, validity of analysis, quality of discussion, clarity of presentation, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's aims and scope.

Peer reviewers provide recommendations; the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor. Acceptance is never guaranteed and is based on the scholarly merit, integrity, relevance, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Peer Review Principles

1. Editorial Independence and Fairness
All manuscripts are evaluated on their academic content and contribution without discrimination based on the authors' nationality, ethnicity, race, gender, gender identity, religion, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, disability, age, socioeconomic status, or other personal characteristics. Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly considerations. Article processing charges, waiver status, organizational membership, institutional affiliation, or participation in journal- or publisher-related activities do not determine editorial decisions.

2. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their subject expertise and their ability to provide an independent and objective assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers should not accept an assignment when they lack appropriate expertise or cannot provide a fair and timely evaluation.

3. Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts and all materials associated with the review process are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, commercial, or other advantage. Reviewers should not contact authors directly concerning a manuscript under review unless specifically authorized by the Editor.

4. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. A reviewer who has a conflict that may interfere with an objective assessment should decline the review invitation or inform the Editor immediately. An Editor with a relevant conflict of interest must not make the editorial decision on the affected manuscript.

5. Reviewer Conduct
Reviews should be objective, constructive, evidence-based, and expressed in professional language. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should identify significant weaknesses, unsupported claims, methodological concerns, relevant literature that has been overlooked, and any suspected research or publication-integrity concerns.

6. Research and Publication Integrity
If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, data fabrication or falsification, unethical research practices, or other possible misconduct, they should confidentially inform the Editor. Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations or contact authors or third parties concerning such concerns.

Editorial Flow of a Manuscript

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening
   Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its relevance to IJABIM's aims and scope, compliance with the journal's submission requirements, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological adequacy, and overall suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be declined without external peer review.
2. Reviewer Assignment
   Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewer selection is made with consideration of subject competence, independence, and potential conflicts of interest.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
   Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and submit their comments and recommendations to the Editor. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
4. Editorial Decision
   After considering the reviewers' reports and the Editor's own assessment, an editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author. Decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the Editor is responsible for the final decision.
5. Revision
   When revision is requested, authors should address the reviewers' and Editor's comments carefully and provide a revised manuscript together with an appropriate response to the issues raised. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated editorially, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
6. Final Editorial Decision
   The Editor evaluates the revised manuscript and determines whether the concerns raised during peer review have been adequately addressed. Additional revision may be requested where necessary. A manuscript is accepted only after the Editor is satisfied that it meets the journal's scholarly and editorial standards.
7. Production and Proofreading
   Following final acceptance, the manuscript enters the production process. Authors may receive a proof for checking typographical, formatting, bibliographic, or production-related errors. Proofreading is not an opportunity for substantial alteration of the accepted scholarly content unless specifically approved by the Editor.
8. Publication and Scholarly Record
   Following completion of editorial and production procedures, the article is formally published as the Version of Record. Peer review is completed before publication. Comments, concerns, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other significant matters arising after publication are handled through IJABIM's formal post-publication policies and do not constitute a continuation of the pre-publication peer-review process.

Editorial Conflicts and Special Circumstances

Manuscripts submitted by members of the journal's editorial team, editorial board, publisher, or individuals with a potential relationship to the handling Editor must be managed in a manner that preserves editorial independence. Such manuscripts should be assigned to an independent Editor who has no relevant conflict of interest, and the authors concerned must not participate in reviewer selection or editorial decision-making for their own manuscripts.

Where a manuscript type is exempt from external peer review, if any, the nature of the editorial evaluation should be clearly identified. Research articles are subject to the peer-review process described above.

Post-Publication Matters

IJABIM welcomes legitimate scholarly communication concerning published work. Questions or concerns raised after publication are assessed by the Editorial Office in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and post-publication update procedures.

Where a published article requires an editorially significant update, the matter will be handled through an appropriate formal mechanism, such as a correction, editorial clarification, expression of concern, or retraction, as described in the journal's Crossmark and Post-Publication Update Policy.