Peer Review Process

Overview

The Journal of Multidimensional Management (JoMM) applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, research integrity, and contribution to management scholarship or practice.

All manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening before being considered for external peer review. Submission to JoMM does not guarantee that a manuscript will be sent for peer review or accepted for publication.

Review Process

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment of manuscript completeness, compliance with the Author Guidelines, relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, originality, basic methodological suitability, ethical requirements, and research integrity. A textual-similarity screening may also be conducted at this stage.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without external peer review.

2. Editor Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor or section editor with relevant subject expertise. Editors must be free from conflicts of interest that could affect their independence or impartiality.

3. Reviewer Selection

The handling editor normally invites at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript. Reviewer selection takes into account subject competence, independence, potential conflicts of interest, and the quality and timeliness of previous reviews where applicable.

Additional reviewers may be invited when reviewer recommendations differ substantially, additional expertise is required, or further independent assessment is considered necessary.

4. Peer Review

Reviewers are normally given 14 to 28 days to evaluate the manuscript, although the review period may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

Reviewers are expected to provide a substantive, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful assessment. Reviews should address the scholarly content of the manuscript and should not be limited to language, grammar, formatting, or other surface-level issues.

5. Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes an editorial decision based on the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, and JoMM's editorial standards.

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final editorial decision. Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review before reaching a decision.

6. Revision

Where revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Changes should be clearly identified in the revised manuscript where requested by the editor.

The time allowed for revision depends on the extent of the changes required. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by additional reviewers, or evaluated directly by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revision.

7. Acceptance and Final Editorial Checks

A manuscript is accepted only after the editor is satisfied that the scholarly, methodological, ethical, and editorial issues raised during the review process have been adequately addressed.

Before production, the editorial office may verify manuscript files, author metadata, references, ethical statements, funding information, conflicts of interest, Author Contributions, Data Availability, and Artificial Intelligence Use declarations. Additional integrity or similarity checks may be undertaken where necessary.

8. Copyediting, Production, and Author Proof

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and production. Authors are provided with proofs for final checking and are expected to respond within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

At the proof stage, changes should normally be limited to correcting typographical, factual, formatting, or production errors. Substantial changes to the research, analyses, authorship, findings, or conclusions require editorial approval.

Review Timeline

JoMM seeks to provide authors with a timely and rigorous editorial process. The journal normally aims to complete the initial editorial assessment within approximately one week and to provide a first decision following external peer review within approximately four to eight weeks.

These periods are editorial targets rather than guaranteed processing times. Actual timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the need for additional expert assessment, and the number of revision rounds required.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to consider the following aspects as relevant to the manuscript type and research design:

• Originality and Contribution: clarity of the research problem, state of the art, research gap, novelty, and theoretical, managerial, methodological, or policy contribution.
• Theoretical Foundation: appropriateness and critical use of relevant theories, concepts, and current literature.
• Methodological Quality and Transparency: appropriateness of the research design, sampling or data sources, measures or instruments, analytical procedures, validity or trustworthiness, and transparency of reporting.
• Results and Evidence: clarity, accuracy, internal consistency, and adequacy of the evidence supporting the findings.
• Discussion and Interpretation: depth of interpretation, engagement with previous research and theory, explanation of expected or unexpected findings, and clarity of the study's contribution.
• Research Ethics and Integrity: ethical approval and informed consent where applicable, responsible data practices, disclosure requirements, and adherence to research-integrity principles.
• Presentation and Scholarly Communication: logical organization, clarity of tables and figures, citation and reference accuracy, and overall readability.
• Fit with the Journal: relevance to JoMM's Focus and Scope and contribution to management scholarship or practice.

Decision Types

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication subject to final editorial and production checks.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions that may normally be evaluated by the handling editor without another full round of external review.

Major Revision / Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires substantial revision, additional clarification, methodological improvement, or further analysis. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of external peer review.

Decline

The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of substantial concerns regarding scope, scholarly contribution, methodology, research integrity, or other significant academic considerations.

A request for revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.

Anonymity, Confidentiality, and Conflicts of Interest

JoMM applies double-blind peer review. Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, contact information, and other identifying information from the anonymous manuscript and its document metadata. Author information should be provided separately in accordance with the journal's submission requirements.

Manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential and must not be disclosed or used for personal, professional, financial, or competitive advantage.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their independence. Reviewers should decline an invitation where such a conflict exists, while editors should recuse themselves and arrange appropriate independent editorial handling.

Reviewer Conduct and Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, substantive, objective, constructive, and respectful evaluations. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, unsupported recommendations, or reviews limited primarily to grammar, formatting, or language correction are not considered appropriate scholarly peer review.

Reviewers must not use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the peer-review process. This includes using AI to analyze or evaluate the manuscript, summarize manuscript content for review purposes, generate or draft reviewer comments, or upload the manuscript or any part of it to an AI system. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the confidentiality, originality, integrity, and content of their reviews.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a material error has occurred in the review or decision-making process. An appeal should provide a clear, specific, and evidence-based justification rather than merely expressing disagreement with the editorial outcome.

Where feasible, appeals and complaints will be considered by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision. Additional independent assessment may be sought where appropriate. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration, reversal of the original decision, or acceptance of the manuscript.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, publication ethics, or journal procedures are handled fairly and in accordance with applicable COPE guidance.

Research and Publication Misconduct

Concerns regarding fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, unethical research, inappropriate image or data manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulation of peer review, or other forms of research and publication misconduct are handled in accordance with JoMM's Publication Ethics and applicable COPE guidance.

Depending on the available evidence and severity of the matter, editorial action may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, restrictions on future submissions, or communication with relevant institutions or authorities.