Peer Review

The review process of papers submitted to JoBSS are assessed in two sequential steps: (1) the desk review and (2) double blind review.

Desk Review

The desk review is to preliminarily determine if the article falls within the scope and intent of the journal and whether it satisfies the required quality. If the paper is either rejected or accepted at desk review, the author will be notified of the reasons for rejection and the paper shall be escalated to a double-blind peer review. However, a paper accepted at the desk review does not automatically guarantee the acceptance of reviewers at the later stage. At the desk review, the Managing Editor (ME) and or Associate Editors (AE) will evaluate the work based on the following questions depicted below:
1. Does the work fall within the requirement of contemporariness?
2. Does the work portray significant positive social impact and the SDG principles?
3. Does the work uplift humanity, managerial and social concerns?

Note: For a better understanding on the role of editors please click here: https://beta.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#2-duties-of-editors.

Double Blind Review

Once the paper is accepted at desk review, the paper will then be double blind reviewed. The double-blind review is conducted once every quarterly. In a double-blind review, the article will be forwarded to at least two academic experts in their field and reviewers are normally deemed to have a doctoral qualification. The double-blind is conducted every quarterly and reviewers are given 14 days to review the paper with an additional 7 days maximum with appropriate reasons. In the event a reviewer does not return a verdict in time, the ME will then have the discretion to make the final decision. In a double-blind review, the article will be examined from the following perspectives:
1. Does the work have a good abstract?
2. Does the work address a notable and publish worthy research gap?
3. Is the work well referenced with high quality references?
4. Is the work well structured and organized?
5. Is the work free from linguistic errors?
6. Are the findings well postulated (if any)?
7. Is the work grounded with a strong and clear conclusion?
8. Is there an implication for future research?

The results of the review could be either (1) accepted without revision or (2) accepted with minor revisions or (3) accepted with major revisions or (4) rejected. However, if there is a hung decision by the reviewers, the ME or the AE will make the final decision. Reviewers’ identities are anonymous unless the reviewer indicates otherwise.

Note: For a better understanding on the role of the reviewers please click here https://beta.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#3-duties-of-reviewers.

The authors will then be notified of the decision and where applicable to revise the work as required. The entire process will take between two to three months or more depending on the speed of response from the authors.

The summary of the review process is as follows:

Note: Authors must always ensure to abide by their duties and be well reminded of the ethics of publication. Authors must revise their work accordingly and ensure that the work is error free. Authors must detail the revisions made in the revision template provided and all queries raised by reviewers must be addressed. Upon receiving the final edition of the work, the ME and AE will prepare the paper for final editing and to be included in the journal listing and repository.
Authors must always abide by the ethical policies of the journal, keeping the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and transparency.

Note: For a better understanding on the ethical policies and role of an author please click here https://beta.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#4-duties-of-authors.