Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Applied Research in Management, Economics and Accounting (IJMEA) follows a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer-review process to maintain the academic quality, originality, integrity, and relevance of the research it publishes.

Under the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors, and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editorial Office to determine whether they:

  • Fall within the scope of IJMEA;

  • Meet the journal's basic submission and formatting requirements;

  • Present sufficient academic and methodological quality for peer review;

  • Follow the journal's publication ethics and research-integrity requirements; and

  • Contain appropriate and sufficient information for scholarly evaluation.

The Editorial Office may return a manuscript to the authors for technical or formatting corrections before the peer-review process begins.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, or unsuitable for academic consideration may be rejected at the initial screening stage.

2. Editorial Assessment

Following the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editor evaluates the manuscript's academic relevance, originality, contribution, and suitability for peer review.

The decision to send a manuscript for review is based on academic considerations and is independent of the payment of any publication fee.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated by qualified independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

IJMEA uses a double-blind peer-review system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity or affiliation of the authors.

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

  • Reviewer reports are handled confidentially by the Editorial Office.

  • Authors and reviewers should not attempt to identify each other during the review process.

Authors are therefore required to remove identifying information from the manuscript and any supplementary files intended for anonymous review, where applicable.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their:

  • Subject-matter expertise;

  • Academic and research experience;

  • Relevant publication record;

  • Methodological knowledge; and

  • Ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment.

The journal seeks to avoid assigning reviewers who have a current, potential, or perceived conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, research, or manuscript under consideration.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are normally asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty;

  • Relevance to the journal's scope;

  • Significance and contribution to the field;

  • Clarity of research objectives and research questions;

  • Theoretical and conceptual foundation;

  • Appropriateness of research methodology;

  • Quality and adequacy of data or evidence;

  • Analysis and interpretation of findings;

  • Validity and consistency of conclusions;

  • Quality and relevance of references;

  • Organization and clarity of presentation; and

  • Compliance with relevant ethical and research-integrity standards.

Reviewers may also identify methodological limitations, missing references, unclear arguments, ethical concerns, or other issues that may affect the quality or reliability of the manuscript.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The reviewers' recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editor responsible for the manuscript, taking into consideration the reviewers' reports and the overall academic assessment of the submission.

7. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript within the specified period.

Authors should provide a clear response to each substantive reviewer comment and indicate how the manuscript has been revised.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when the Editor considers additional review necessary.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Editorial Decision

The final decision may be based on:

  • The quality and consistency of the reviewer reports;

  • The manuscript's academic contribution;

  • The adequacy of the authors' responses to reviewer comments;

  • The methodological and ethical soundness of the research; and

  • The manuscript's overall suitability for publication in IJMEA.

The Editor may request additional review or consultation when the available assessments are insufficient to reach a well-supported editorial decision.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to IJMEA are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained through the editorial and peer-review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors unless the reviewer has explicitly chosen to identify themselves in accordance with the journal's procedures.

10. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

A reviewer should decline an invitation if they have a significant personal, professional, institutional, financial, or competitive relationship with the authors or research that could compromise objective evaluation.

Further information is available in the journal's Conflicts of Interest Policy.

11. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers are encouraged to notify the Editorial Office of serious concerns relating to:

  • Plagiarism or substantial text similarity;

  • Duplicate or redundant publication;

  • Fabrication or falsification of data;

  • Manipulation of images, data, or results;

  • Questionable authorship or contributorship;

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • Ethical approval or informed-consent concerns; or

  • Other potential breaches of research or publication ethics.

The Editorial Office may investigate such concerns in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and misconduct policies.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts throughout the review process.

Reviewers should not upload or disclose confidential manuscript content, unpublished data, figures, tables, or other identifying information to generative artificial intelligence systems or external services where doing so could compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment.

13. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on academic quality, relevance, originality, methodological soundness, research integrity, and suitability for the journal.

Editorial decisions are not influenced by an author's ability or willingness to pay publication charges.

The Article Processing Charge (APC) of €170 is payable only after a manuscript has received final acceptance and is scheduled for publication.

There is no submission fee and no peer-review fee.

Authors are officially notified of the publication fee and payment instructions through the journal's official email address only after final acceptance.

Following confirmation of payment, the accepted article will be published within 10 days.

A Publication Certificate will also be issued and sent to the author after publication.

14. No Guarantee of Acceptance

Participation in the peer-review process does not guarantee publication.

A manuscript may be rejected at any stage if substantial academic, methodological, ethical, or research-integrity concerns are identified.

Payment of an APC does not influence editorial decisions and cannot be used to secure acceptance.

15. Reviewer Recognition

IJMEA values the contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Where appropriate, the journal may provide reviewers with a formal acknowledgment or reviewer certificate in recognition of their contribution, subject to confidentiality requirements.

16. Target Review Timeline

IJMEA seeks to conduct peer review in an efficient and responsible manner while allowing reviewers sufficient time to provide a meaningful academic assessment.

The actual review period may vary depending on:

  • Manuscript complexity;

  • Availability of suitable reviewers;

  • Reviewer response times;

  • Need for additional reviewers; and

  • Whether revisions or additional assessments are required.

The journal does not compromise the quality or integrity of peer review in order to meet a fixed publication deadline.

17. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant misunderstanding, procedural error, or substantive issue may submit a formal appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Appeals are considered independently and must provide a clear academic or procedural basis for reconsideration.

There is no fee for submitting an appeal.

18. Final Principle

IJMEA is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, independent, and academically rigorous double-blind peer-review process.

The journal's peer-review system is designed to support high-quality scholarly communication while protecting the confidentiality of authors and reviewers and maintaining the integrity of the academic record.