Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Business Insight and Innovation (JBII) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly integrity and rigor. Our peer review process is the cornerstone of this commitment, designed to ensure that all published articles are original, valid, significant, and clearly presented. This policy outlines the principles and procedures governing our review system.

1. Types of Peer Review

JBII employs a double-anonymous peer review process. This means:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
  • The identities of the reviewers are also concealed from the authors.
  • This model minimizes bias and allows for objective evaluation based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript.

2. Guiding Principles

  • Fairness & Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted impartially, without personal or professional bias related to the author's nationality, institution, gender, or other characteristics.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the unpublished manuscript for their own advantage.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks). Delays should be communicated promptly to the Editor.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed, respectful, and constructive critiques aimed at helping authors improve their work, regardless of the recommendation.

3. The Review Process

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor conducts an initial check for:

  • Suitability for the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Adherence to basic formatting and ethical guidelines.
  • Originality and potential scholarly contribution.
    Manuscripts failing this screening will be returned to the authors without external review.

Step 2: Reviewer Selection
If the manuscript passes initial screening, the Editor selects 2-3 independent expert reviewers from our database. Reviewers are matched based on their expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Step 3: The Review
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on:

  • Originality & Contribution: Does the work advance knowledge in business insight or innovation?
  • Methodological Soundness: Is the research design, analysis, and data appropriate and robust?
  • Clarity & Structure: Is the argument logical and the presentation clear?
  • Scholarly Context: Is the literature review adequate and relevant?
  • Ethical Compliance: Are there any apparent ethical issues?
    Reviewers provide a confidential recommendation to the Editor (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject) along with detailed comments for the author and any confidential notes for the Editor.

Step 4: Editorial Decision
The Editor consolidates the reviews and makes a final decision, which is communicated to the corresponding author. Decisions are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current or minimally edited form.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is provisionally accepted pending satisfactory addressing of specific, minor points. It is typically re-evaluated by the Editor.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes and a new round of peer review. Authors are given a specified time to resubmit.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JBII.

Step 5: Revision and Resubmission
Authors submitting a revised manuscript must include a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document, explaining how each comment was addressed. The revised manuscript is then sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation when necessary.

Step 6: Final Acceptance and Production
Once all reviewer and editorial concerns are satisfactorily resolved, the Editor sends a formal acceptance notice. The manuscript then proceeds to copyediting and production.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

For Reviewers:

  • Declare any potential conflict of interest (e.g., close collaboration, direct competition, personal relationships) immediately.
  • Provide unbiased, evidence-based assessments.
  • Maintain absolute confidentiality.
  • Alert the Editor to any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication.

For Authors:

  • Ensure the manuscript is original and not under consideration elsewhere.
  • Accurately report sources and data.
  • Disclose any funding sources or conflicts of interest.
  • Participate in the review process in good faith and respond to critiques professionally.

5. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe there has been a significant error in the review process (e.g., a major misunderstanding of the manuscript). Appeals must be made in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of the decision, providing a clear and detailed justification. The Editor-in-Chief will review the case, potentially consulting with Associate Editors or new reviewers, and their decision is final.

6. Becoming a Reviewer

JBII welcomes nominations and applications from qualified scholars. Experts interested in joining our reviewer panel should contact the editorial office with a brief CV and their areas of expertise. Consistent, high-quality reviewers are often invited to join the Editorial Board.

For any questions regarding this policy, please contact the editorial office at: editor@insightfuljournals.com