IJOIS

Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Innovative Studies (IJOIS) is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic quality and integrity through a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review, ensuring that both the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first reviewed by the Editorial Office to ensure that:

• The manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus and scope;
• All required sections are present and properly formatted;
• The manuscript is written in clear academic English;
• Ethical standards (e.g., plagiarism, conflict of interest, authorship) are met.

Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria or fall outside the journal’s scope may be desk rejected without external review. Authors of such submissions will receive prompt notification with brief editorial feedback.

2. Assignment to Associate Editor

If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to an Associate Editor or a member of the Editorial Board with subject expertise. The Associate Editor conducts a preliminary assessment and recommends suitable reviewers from the journal’s reviewer database or external networks.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Selected reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript. Typically, each submission is sent to two (2) or more independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality and significance of the topic;
• Clarity of research objectives and questions;
• Adequacy of literature review and theoretical framework;
• Soundness of research methodology and data analysis;
• Quality and interpretation of findings;
• Contribution to knowledge in business education and management;
• Structure, coherence, and academic writing style.

Reviewers are required to submit their evaluations within 2 to 4 weeks, though extensions may be granted under special circumstances.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations, the Associate Editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision (rare);
• Accept with minor revisions;
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions required);
• Reject (with constructive feedback).

For manuscripts requiring revisions, authors will be provided with detailed comments and suggestions. Authors are expected to submit a revised version within the specified timeframe, along with a response letter detailing how reviewer comments were addressed.

5. Second Round Review (if applicable)

In cases of major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers for a second round of evaluation. The purpose is to ensure that the revisions have adequately addressed the concerns raised.

6. Final Decision and Acceptance

Once the manuscript meets all academic and editorial standards, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor makes the final decision to accept the manuscript for publication. The accepted paper will then proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and publication scheduling. Authors will be notified of the final decision and receive galley proofs for final corrections before publication.

7. Estimated Review Timeline

8. Reviewer Selection and Ethics

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject matter expertise;
• Academic qualifications;
• Record of timely, quality reviews;
• No conflict of interest with the authors or manuscript.

All reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, offer constructive and respectful feedback, and disclose any potential bias or conflicts of interest.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection or lodge a complaint about the review process may contact the Editor-in-Chief in writing, clearly stating the grounds for the appeal. Appeals will be considered by an independent member of the editorial board, and the decision will be final.

10. Acknowledging Reviewers

To acknowledge the invaluable contribution of peer reviewers, IJOIS:

• Publishes an annual list of reviewers (with consent);
• Issues official review certificates on request;
• Considers active reviewers for editorial board appointments or guest editorship roles.

At IJOIS, we believe that a fair, thorough, and timely peer review process is the cornerstone of academic excellence. We continuously strive to improve our processes and provide a positive experience for both authors and reviewers. If you would like to serve as a reviewer for IJOIS, kindly contact us at editorijois@ijois.com with your CV and areas of expertise.