Peer Review Process

Overview

The Journal of Multidimensional Management uses a double-blind peer review process. Identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review. Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit and adherence to journal policies.

Workflow & Timelines

  1. Submission & Desk Check (0–7 days)
    The editorial office screens completeness, formatting, scope fit, and basic ethics/integrity (including similarity check). Non-compliant submissions may be returned to authors for correction or desk-rejected.

  2. Editor Assignment (1–3 days)
    A handling editor (or section editor) is appointed based on subject expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.

  3. Reviewer Selection & Invitation (up to 7 days)
    The editor invites at least two expert reviewers. If invitations are declined or time out, new reviewers are invited.

  4. Review (14–28 days)
    Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against the criteria below and submit a structured report with a recommendation.

  5. Editorial Decision (3–7 days)
    The editor synthesizes reviewer reports and issues one of the decisions described under Decision Types.

  6. Revisions (1–6 weeks, depending on depth)
    Authors submit a tracked-changes manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each comment was addressed. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers (“resubmission for review”) or decided by the editor.

  7. Acceptance & Pre-publication Checks (up to 10 days)
    Final files are verified (metadata, ethics statements, COI/funding, data availability). A final similarity check may be performed.

  8. Copyediting, Typesetting & Proofs (1–2 weeks)
    Authors must review proofs carefully and reply promptly. Only essential corrections (typographical/production) are allowed at proof stage.

Target time to first decision: 4–6 weeks. Actual times may vary by reviewer availability and revision rounds.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess:

  • Originality & contribution (clear research gap; theoretical and/or practical impact)

  • Methodological rigor & transparency (design, data, analysis, validity/reliability)

  • Ethics & integrity (IRB/ethics approval and consent where applicable; data availability; reproducibility)

  • Argumentation & clarity (logic, structure, literature positioning)

  • Presentation quality (figures/tables, standards, IEEE references)

  • Fit to Aim & Scope

Decision Types

  • Reject: Serious flaws or out of scope; not suitable for publication.

  • Resubmit for Review: Substantial changes required; re-evaluation needed (treated as a new round with reviewers).

  • Revision:

    • Major revision: Significant changes and/or additional analyses required.

    • Minor revision: Limited changes; typically editor-verified.

  • Accept: Publishable subject to final checks and production.

Anonymity, Confidentiality & Conflicts of Interest

  • Double-blind: Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file and metadata; author details appear only on the Title Page.

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviews are confidential; content may not be shared or used for personal advantage.

  • COI: Editors and reviewers must decline if any conflict exists (recent collaboration, shared affiliation, financial interest, or personal relationships). Editors will reassign the manuscript when a COI is identified.

Reviewer Conduct & Use of AI Tools

  • Reviews must be objective, constructive, and respectful; personal remarks are not permitted.

  • Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to public AI systems. If an AI tool is used privately (e.g., grammar assistance), the reviewer must ensure confidentiality and remains fully responsible for the content of the review.

Appeals & Complaints

Authors may appeal a decision by emailing the editorial office with a detailed justification. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision, and—where appropriate—by an additional independent reviewer. Complaints about editorial conduct or peer review are handled according to COPE guidance.

Corrections, Retractions, and Misconduct

Suspected misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate submission, unethical research, image manipulation, undisclosed COI) is handled following COPE flowcharts. Outcomes may include correction, expression of concern, retraction, or submission embargo.