 |
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Manajemen dan Bisnis goes through editorial screening and peer review, so that only valid and good quality work is published. Publication depends on the scientific validity and coherence of the manuscript, as judged by the editors and the peer reviewers. Reviewers also assess whether the manuscript is comprehensible and whether it makes a useful contribution to management and business scholarship. The journal gratefully acknowledges the effort and the suggestions of its reviewers.
Review model: double blind. The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Experts assess the scientific merit and the originality of the manuscript, its relevance to management and business, and its fit with the focus and scope of the journal.
|
Double blind
review model
|
3 weeks
maximum for the initial evaluation
|
2 to 3
expert reviewers for each manuscript
|
8 weeks
usual maximum for peer review
|
The Process at a Glance
| No. | Stage | What happens | Estimated time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial evaluation | The editor checks the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript. | A maximum of 3 weeks |
| 2 | Assignment of reviewers | Independent expert reviewers are invited, and the manuscript is anonymized. | After the initial evaluation |
| 3 | Review | The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and advise the editor. Further rounds are held if the first round is inadequate. | Usually up to 8 weeks |
| 4 | Decision | The editor decides on the basis of the review reports and informs the authors. | After the review reports are received |
| 5 | Revision | The authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked. | 2 weeks for a minor revision, 4 weeks for a major revision |
| 6 | Publication | An accepted manuscript is copyedited, formatted, and published in an upcoming issue. | Depends on the issue schedule |
These times are estimates and not guarantees. The actual time depends on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds. The months in which the issues appear are listed on the Publication Frequency page.
1. Initial Evaluation
The editor evaluates every submission within a maximum of 3 weeks. The evaluation covers four points.
| Check | What the editor looks at |
|---|---|
| Scope and focus | The manuscript must fit the focus and scope of the journal and meet the conditions for publication. |
| Format | The manuscript is checked against the Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Preparation instructions, including the template and the citation style. A manuscript that does not comply is returned to the authors for reformatting and resubmission. |
| Originality | The manuscript is screened for similarity with other work under the Plagiarism Policy. |
| Ethics | For research with human participants, the editors check that permission and informed consent are described and that the required statements are included. See the Publication Ethics page. |
- A similarity result is only a screening signal. It is not proof of plagiarism, and a high result leads to an examination by the editor and not to automatic rejection.
- A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it is not sufficiently original, if it has serious scientific flaws, or if it falls outside the aims and scope of the journal.
- An exceptional manuscript can be accepted at this stage, although this is rare.
- A manuscript that meets the minimum criteria is passed on to expert reviewers.
2. Reviewers, Anonymity, and Conflicts of Interest
2.1 Assignment of reviewers
- Generally, two to three independent experts in the field review each manuscript.
- Reviewers should come from institutions that are different from the institution of the corresponding author.
- A reviewer accepts or declines the invitation on the basis of his or her expertise, availability, and possible conflicts of interest.
- Researchers who would like to review for MANABIS can join the reviewer list as described in section 8. The current reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page.
2.2 Anonymity
The title block and the running header of the MANABIS template show the names of the authors. For that reason, the editorial office prepares an anonymized version of the manuscript before it is sent to the reviewers.
| Information | Handling |
|---|---|
| Author names, affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgements, and the author contribution statement | Removed from the version that the reviewers receive. They are kept in a separate file that is not sent to the reviewers. |
| Funding and competing interest statements | Kept by the editors for their own use. |
| Personal information in the file properties | Removed before the file is sent. |
2.3 Conflicts of interest
- A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest must decline the review or must abstain from the decision. See the Conflicts of Interest policy.
- A manuscript that is submitted by an editor or by a member of the Editorial Board is handled by an editor who is not involved. The author takes no part in its evaluation or in the decision.
3. Review
Reviewers assess scientific soundness and coherence, whether the work duplicates work that has already been published, and whether the manuscript is clear enough to be published. They give constructive feedback and recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. A review usually takes up to 8 weeks. Additional rounds of review are held if the first round is inadequate.
| Section | Questions for the reviewer |
|---|---|
| Title and abstract | Does the title describe the manuscript accurately? Do the abstract and the keywords show the contribution of the study? Are the English and the Indonesian abstracts both present and consistent? |
| Introduction | Are the background, the research gap, the novelty, and the objectives clearly stated, and is the problem relevant to management and business? |
| Literature Review | Are the theories and the earlier studies relevant, and do they lead logically to the research problem, the framework, or the hypotheses? |
| Research Method | Are the design, the population and the sample, the instruments, and the analysis appropriate and replicable? Are the validity and the reliability of the instruments explained? Are permission and informed consent described? |
| Results and Discussion | Are the results correct and clear, and do they support the conclusions? Are they linked to earlier research and theory, and are the implications for management practice explained? |
| Conclusion | Is the conclusion supported by the results, and does it answer the research objectives? |
| References | Are the references accurate, recent, and in the required style, and is the relevant earlier work cited correctly? |
| Ethics and integrity | Are there signs of plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, or other concerns that the editor should know about? |
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit the manuscript. Correction of the language is not part of peer review.
Duties of reviewers
- Keep the manuscript and all information about it confidential.
- Do not upload the manuscript to any generative AI tool.
- Generative AI may be used only to improve the language of the reviewer's own report. See the Generative AI Policies.
4. Decision
The reviewers advise the editor, and the editor makes the final decision to accept or to reject the manuscript. The editor decides on the basis of the review reports and, where it is necessary, consults the Editorial Board. If the comments of the reviewers differ significantly, the editor may invite an additional reviewer before deciding. The decisions and the comments of the reviewers are sent to the authors through the online system, and the comments remain anonymous.
| Decision | Meaning | Time for the authors |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript goes to copyediting and publication. | No deadline |
| Minor revision | Small changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted. | 2 weeks |
| Major revision | Substantial changes are needed before the manuscript can be considered further. | 4 weeks |
| Reject | The manuscript is not accepted for publication in MANABIS. | No deadline |
Fees do not influence decisions. Decisions rest only on the quality and the relevance of the manuscript. See the Publication Ethics page. Information about charges is given on the Author Fees page.
The decision of the editor is final. The only exception is the appeal procedure in section 6.
5. Revision Process
| Topic | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Time allowed | Normally 2 weeks for a minor revision and 4 weeks for a major revision. An author who needs more time must tell the editors before the deadline. |
| What to submit | (1) The revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted. (2) A response letter that answers each comment, explains each change, or explains why a comment was not followed. |
| After a major revision | Normally a second round of review by the same reviewers, who check whether their comments have been addressed. |
| After a minor revision | Further review is optional and is decided by the editor. |
6. Complaints and Appeals
- An author who believes that a decision was based on an error or on an unfair review may send an email to jurnal.manabis@gmail.com with the subject line Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier].
- The letter must give clear reasons and evidence, and it must respond to the specific points of the decision. Disagreement alone is not a ground for reconsideration.
- An editor who is not involved reviews the appeal and may ask for an additional opinion.
- The decision on the appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once.
- Concerns about misconduct follow the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
7. Publication
- After acceptance, the authors submit the final version of the manuscript. It is copyedited and formatted before it is published in an upcoming issue.
- Changes to a published article follow the Correction and Retraction policy.
- Scholarly comments on a published article follow the procedure of Post Publication Discussion.
8. Becoming a Reviewer
- Researchers who are not yet reviewers and who would like to join the reviewer list can complete the Call for Reviewer form, or they can send an email to jurnal.manabis@gmail.com to request the reviewer form and return the completed form by email.
- Reviewers receive early access to recent work in their field and are acknowledged in the reviewer list. They may also be able to cite their reviewing activity for their professional development.
- Reviewers are volunteers and are not paid.
9. Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review
MANABIS makes the following commitments to authors, reviewers, and readers. The full duties of editors, reviewers, and authors are set out on the Publication Ethics page.
| Commitment | What it means |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality | The manuscript and all information about its review are strictly confidential. |
| Objectivity and impartiality | Reviews are based on merit, are free of bias and conflicts of interest, and are constructive. |
| Timeliness | Reviews are completed within a reasonable time, and the authors are kept informed of the progress. |
| Transparency and accountability | Reviewers give reasoned comments, and the editors decide fairly on the basis of those comments. |
| Conflicts of interest | Editors and reviewers declare their conflicts of interest, and the journal keeps the evaluation unbiased. |
| Plagiarism and misconduct | Suspected cases are reported promptly and handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy. |
| Recognition of reviewers | The contribution of reviewers is acknowledged and credited. |
Related Pages and Enquiries
Questions about the peer review process should be sent to the editorial office at jurnal.manabis@gmail.com. Please include the title of the manuscript and, if there is one, the submission ID.
