Editorial Decision-Making Process

The Jinnah Business Review (JBR) is committed to publishing high-quality, original research that contributes significantly to the field of management sciences. Our editorial decision-making process is designed to be rigorous, fair, impartial, and efficient. Every manuscript received is judged solely on its intellectual content, scholarly merit, and relevance to the journal's scope, without regard to the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, race, or seniority.

1. Stages of Editorial Decision-Making

The journey of a manuscript from submission to final decision involves several critical stages, as outlined below.

1.1 Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Managing Editor conducts an initial screening. This first check is not a judgment on the research's potential impact but a necessary assessment of several key criteria:

a) Scope and Fit: Does the manuscript fall within the stated Aims and Scope of JBR?

b) Originality and Contribution: Does the work present novel findings or a significant advancement of existing knowledge?

c) Manuscript Preparation: Is the manuscript formatted according to JBR's guidelines? Is it written in clear, academic English?

d) Ethical Compliance: Does the manuscript comply with our policies on authorship, plagiarism, and conflict of interest?

Decision at this Stage:

a) Desk Reject: Manuscripts that fail to meet these basic criteria will be returned to the authors without proceeding to peer review. This ensures that valuable reviewer time is reserved for manuscripts with the highest potential and provides authors with a rapid decision.

b) Proceed to Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise.

1.2 Stage 2: Peer Review (Double-Anonymized)

JBR employs a double-anonymized peer review process. This means that the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. This process is fundamental to ensuring objective and unbiased evaluations.

a) Associate Editor's Role: The Associate Editor manages the peer review process, inviting typically two independent experts in the field.

b) Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and past reliability. They are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review.

c) Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on:

I. Originality and significance of the research.

II. Methodological soundness and rigor.

III. Clarity of presentation and argument.

IV. Appropriateness of literature review and analysis.

V. Validity of conclusions, supported by the evidence.

1.3 Stage 3: Decision Recommendation and Final Editorial Judgment

Once the reviewers have submitted their reports, the Associate Editor synthesizes their feedback, considers any conflicting opinions, and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, who considers the reviewers' comments, the Associate Editor's assessment, and the journal's editorial priorities.

2. Types of Final Decisions

Based on the peer review process, one of the following decisions will be communicated to the corresponding author:

a) Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is. (This is rare after a first round of review).

b) Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted in principle, pending specific, minor revisions requested by the reviewers and editors. The revised version is typically reviewed by the Associate Editor.

c) Major Revisions: The manuscript shows potential but requires substantial additional work, clarification, or analysis. Authors are invited to submit a revised version, along with a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript will be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

d) Reject and Resubmit: This decision indicates that the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form but the core idea has significant merit. A completely new submission, after extensive reworking, will be considered as a new manuscript.

e) Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JBR. The rejection is final. Authors will receive the reviewers' comments to inform their future work.

3. Communication and Transparency

a) The corresponding author will receive a formal decision letter outlining the outcome.

b) For decisions of "Revise," the letter will include the reviewers' anonymized comments and any specific editorial guidance.

c) Authors have the right to appeal a decision by submitting a formal letter to the Editor-in-Chief, outlining the specific grounds for the appeal. Appeals are only considered on the basis of a substantive methodological or factual error in the review process, not simply because of a disagreement with the decision.

4. Our Commitment

We are committed to providing a timely, constructive, and respectful review process. Our editors and reviewers are volunteers who dedicate their time to advancing the scholarly community. We expect all authors, reviewers, and editors to engage with this process professionally and ethically, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

________________________________________

This policy is guided by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The JBR editorial team strives to uphold these standards in every decision.