Review Policy

Editorial Review and Peer Review Policies

The editorial team of the International Journal of Management Thinking (IJMT) maintains rigorous standards throughout its editorial and peer review processes to ensure that every published manuscript meets the journal's quality benchmarks. Specifically, the editorial process verifies that:

  • the manuscript's content is aligned with the aims and scope of IJMT;
  • the research is original, innovative, and of high scholarly quality;
  • the manuscript adheres to IJMT's prescribed format and layout; and
  • the language, grammar, and academic style meet the journal's standards.

Editorial Process

Manuscripts submitted to IJMT are initially handled by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor, who is responsible for processing each submission in accordance with IJMT's editorial policies. Upon receipt, every manuscript undergoes a detailed preliminary check — including a plagiarism screening — conducted by the Editorial Office. This preliminary review is completed within 7–8 working days of submission.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial review are forwarded to an Assistant Editor for necessary formatting and editing before proceeding to the peer review stage. Submissions that do not meet the journal's basic standards may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to peer review.

Following the initial review, the editor may:

  • accept the manuscript for peer review without revisions;
  • request minor or major revisions from the author(s) before forwarding for peer review; or
  • reject the submission outright.

Any suggestions or comments arising from the editorial review are communicated to the author(s) for revision accordingly.

Peer Review Process

IJMT operates a double-blind peer review system, whereby the identities of both the author(s) and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors at any stage; author identities may only become known to reviewers after formal publication.

Key features of IJMT's peer review process include:

  • Every manuscript is evaluated by at least three independent experts of international standing before a publication decision is made.
  • Reviewers are selected strictly on the basis of their subject expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript.
  • The editorial team endeavors to include at least one reviewer from the country or region that is the primary focus of the manuscript.
  • As a standard practice, manuscripts are sent to at least one local and one international subject specialist. In exceptional cases, two local experts and one international reviewer may be assigned, provided that at least one local reviewer holds a PhD or Postdoctoral qualification from an internationally recognized institution.
  • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution.

Author(s) are required to address all reviewer comments and recommendations in their revised submission. Where the author(s) disagree with a specific observation, a clear written clarification or justification must be provided for each point of disagreement.

The revised manuscript is then examined by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor to verify that all required changes have been satisfactorily incorporated. Where conflicting reviewer reports arise, the Editor may seek an advisory opinion from a member of the Editorial Advisory Board. The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over all publication and rejection decisions.

Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Peer reviewers assess each manuscript against the following ten minimum standards for acceptance:

  1. Title — Brief, specific, and clearly reflective of the study's content and purpose; approximately 10–15 words; uses active rather than noun-heavy phrasing.

  2. Abstract — Accurately represents the research problem, study purpose, design, and key findings; 180–200 words in length.

  3. Keywords — Sufficient in number (6–8 terms); descriptive and conceptually representative; do not merely repeat words from the title.

  4. Introduction — Moves logically from the broader subject area to the specific research problem; covers purpose, scope, background, significance, hypothesis/research questions, brief methodology, and article structure.

  5. Literature Review — Provides a critical synthesis of relevant sources, situating the study clearly within the broader field and in relation to the research problem.

  6. Methodology — Clearly describes the research design, procedures, and rationale for the chosen methods of data identification, collection, processing, and analysis.

  7. Results — Presents findings in a logical, unbiased sequence, directly grounded in the applied methodology and free from interpretive overlay.

  8. Discussion — Interprets findings in the context of existing knowledge, articulates new insights, and connects back to the research questions or hypotheses introduced in the introduction.

  9. Conclusion — Synthesizes key findings, explains the study's significance to the broader field, and — where appropriate — identifies directions for future research.

  10. Language and Style — Clear, objective, and academically appropriate; favors active voice and plain academic English; avoids unnecessary jargon and overly complex expression.