Review Process

The Editorial team of the JBMA is dedicated to independently reviewing papers for original contribution(s) to a given topic. This process starts with the editors making a first screening of the submitted papers resulting in either the papers being sent for refereeing or, if being rejected, without a review report. After the referee(s) send their report(s), the editor will screen the reports for soundness, fairness, and consistency before replying to the author(s). The authors will only be invited to submit a reply and a revised manuscript if the review process recommends acceptance subject to substantial revisions. If the editors find an article in need of only a few minor editorial changes, the copy-editing process may take care of the revisions without resort to the author(s).

Peer Review Objective:
While the Editorial team reserves the independence in deciding to accept or reject a submission, fairness requires the reviews to be impartial, sound, valid, comprehensive, and both theoretically and empirically defendable. To avoid selecting low quality articles, the referees' reports are screened for comprehensiveness in reaching the final decision.
 
The refereeing process is fully anonymous. The editorial team will protect the name(s) of the authors from the referees in order to preserve the integrity of the blind peer review process. The referees are required to adhere to the following classes of acceptance/rejection:
  • The suitability of the article will be assessed by the Managing Editor.
  • Two reviewers will be appointed — one from within UUM and one external to UUM.
  • Once the review is completed, the editor will send the evaluation to the author for necessary improvements.
    • Accept without content changes
    • Accept with minor content changes
    • Accept with major content changes
    • Reject – unsuitable for publication
  • After the revisions, the reviewers will confirm the article for publication.
Key Criteria:
As the JBMA’s aim is to cater to international scholars, the journal has already established a set of consistent standards by adhering to the following:
  • Clarity in communicating the contents of a paper (in English).
  • Evidence of original contribution(s) to the field.
  • High theoretical quality and validity in empirical application.