Peer Review Process

The peer review process is one of the most important steps in improving the quality of the manuscript before publication. The Advanced Journal of Business and Economic Management operates a double-blind peer review system.

Double Blind Peer Review

A double-blind peer review system is an anonymous review process in which the reviewers that are chosen are not informed of the identity of the manuscript's author(s). Before a manuscript is sent to a reviewer, all information that would allow the reviewer to identify the author of the work is removed from the text. In a similar vein, the reviewers' identities are concealed from the author(s), sending the reviewers’ comments back to the author(s).

Editorial Screening

The peer review process consists of the editorial screening, external review, and editor’s decision. The editorial screening process takes place internally in the editorial office. On submission, a manuscript is reviewed to ensure it meets the minimum requirements of the journal.

The manuscript is internally screened for the following reason:

• The level of plagiarism.
• If the manuscript is in line with the scope of the journal.
• If there is a correct usage of the English language.
• If references are correct, recent and well cited.
• If the Tables and Figures provided are clear and well cited.

External Review

After the editorial screening, the second stage of the review process employs the double-blind review, which is initiated by sending the manuscript to a minimum of three external reviewers. The reviewers are invited to review the manuscript by sending them the title and abstract of the manuscript. Upon acceptance to review the manuscript, the full text of the manuscript is sent to the reviewers.

They are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide useful comments to enable the author(s) to improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers also score the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation and depth of research. Finally, reviewers make one of the following suggestions about the manuscript:

Requires minor corrections

Requires moderate revision

Requires major revision

Not suitable for further processing. In this case, the reviewer provides specific reason(s) why the manuscript should not be further processed.

After review, the editorial office forwards the reviewers’ comments; the author(s) makes corrections to the manuscript and submits a revised manuscript.

 Editor’s Decision

Upon receipt of the revised submission, the manuscript undergoes the third and final stage of the review process. The original manuscript, the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ comments are sent to an editor of the journal. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes one of the following decisions:

Accept as it is

Accept with minor correction

Requires major corrections

Send revised manuscript for review again

Reject

Furthermore, accepted manuscripts are prepared for publication. However, a manuscript that requires corrections, either minor or major as stated by the editor, is sent back to the author(s) to effect the suggested corrections. After effecting the corrections, the review manuscript is sent back to the editor. In some cases, the editor may suggest a second review or may require authors to make corrections a second time before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.