Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Strategic Business Research (JSBR) is committed to ensuring the integrity, transparency, and quality of its scholarly publications through a rigorous triple-blind peer review process. This policy outlines the principles, procedures, and ethical standards followed during manuscript evaluation.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process serves to:

Evaluate the quality, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts.
Ensure the accuracy, clarity, and methodological rigor of research.
Provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
Uphold the scholarly record by preventing the publication of flawed or unethical research.

2. Review Model

JSBR follows a triple-blind review process:

Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.

This ensures unbiased evaluation based solely on academic merit and relevance to the journal’s scope.

3. Review Process Stages

a) Initial Editorial Screening

Submissions that do not meet minimum requirements are returned to authors without external review.

b) Reviewer Selection

At least two independent expert reviewers are assigned to each manuscript.
Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

c) Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

Originality and contribution to knowledge.
Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
Methodological soundness and research design.
Quality and clarity of data presentation (tables, figures, references).
Ethical compliance in research conduct.

d) Decision Categories
Following review, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept (with or without minor editorial changes)
Minor Revision (author must revise and resubmit for final approval)
Major Revision (substantial changes required; manuscript will undergo another review round)
Reject (manuscript not suitable for publication)

e) Revision Process

Authors must respond to reviewer comments with a point-by-point rebuttal.
Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the same reviewers where possible.

4. Review Timeline

Initial screening: 1–2 weeks
Peer review process: 4–8 weeks (may vary based on reviewer availability)
Total time from submission to decision: 6–10 weeks (average)

5. Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and its contents.

Avoid using unpublished information for personal research advantage.

Disclose any conflicts of interest and decline the review if necessary.

6. Appeals Process

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may appeal in writing by providing a detailed rebuttal. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may seek additional independent opinions before making a final decision.

7. Commitment to Fairness and Transparency

JSBR is dedicated to ensuring that the peer review process is: