Review Process
Peer Review Process
JBMA is committed to a rigorous, fair and transparent editorial process designed to ensure the originality, methodological quality, scholarly contribution and relevance of every article considered for publication.
JBMA operates a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two suitably qualified independent reviewers.
How the Review Process Works
Submission and Administrative Check
The editorial office checks the submission for completeness, manuscript type, anonymity, required files, formatting, ethical declarations and compliance with the journal's basic submission requirements.
Initial Editorial Screening
The Editor or designated Section Editor assesses whether the manuscript is suitable for JBMA before external peer review.
The screening considers journal fit, originality, theoretical grounding, methodological credibility, scholarly contribution, quality of presentation and relevance beyond the immediate research setting.
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject and/or methodological expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of scholarly competence, independence and absence of conflicts of interest.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide evidence-based comments on originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigour, analysis, interpretation, relevance, clarity and overall publishability.
Editorial Assessment and Decision
The Editor considers the reviewers' reports together with an independent editorial assessment. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it automatically. The Editor remains responsible for the final editorial judgement.
Revision and Author Response
Where revision is invited, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed Response to Reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where appropriate, providing a reasoned justification for not making a requested change.
Final Decision
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated editorially, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. A manuscript is accepted only when the Editor is satisfied that the substantive scholarly and editorial concerns have been adequately addressed.
A manuscript may be declined without external review if it falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution, has major methodological weaknesses, is predominantly descriptive, does not meet basic ethical or publication requirements, or is not sufficiently developed for external peer review.
Editorial Decisions
The manuscript is suitable for publication subject only to final editorial and production checks.
Limited revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.
Substantial changes are necessary and the revised manuscript may undergo further peer review.
The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication in its present form.
Objectives of Peer Review
The purpose of peer review at JBMA is not simply to recommend acceptance or rejection. Reviewers are expected to provide a fair, constructive and academically defensible assessment that helps the editors evaluate the quality and contribution of the manuscript and, where appropriate, helps authors strengthen their work.
Reviews should be:
Key Review Criteria
Review criteria are adapted to the manuscript type, but reviewers are generally asked to consider the following:
| Criterion | What Reviewers Consider |
|---|---|
| Journal Fit | Alignment with JBMA's aims, scope and scholarly positioning. |
| Originality | Novelty of the research problem, evidence, interpretation or contribution. |
| Theoretical Contribution | Extent to which the manuscript develops, extends, refines, challenges or meaningfully applies existing knowledge. |
| Methodological Rigour | Appropriateness, transparency, validity and credibility of the research design, data and analytical procedures. |
| Analysis & Interpretation | Quality of analysis and the extent to which conclusions are supported by the evidence. |
| Context & Relevance | Significance of the organisational or institutional context and relevance beyond the immediate setting. |
| Implications | Meaningful implications for theory, management practice, policy or future research. |
| Clarity & Presentation | Logical organisation, clarity of argument and quality of scholarly communication. |
Additional Review Considerations
Research Case Studies and Comparative Case Studies are additionally assessed for the appropriateness of case selection, richness and credibility of evidence, transparency of case boundaries, analytical procedures and the extent to which insights extend beyond description of the individual case.
Teaching Cases are additionally assessed for authenticity, quality of the managerial or organisational dilemma, case narrative, evidence, educational value, classroom usability, learning objectives, discussion questions and the quality of the accompanying Teaching Note.
Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, discuss or use unpublished material from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the invitation where their independence or impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
Reviews should address the scholarly work and must not contain personal, discriminatory, hostile or inappropriate comments about the authors.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance to the journal and contribution to knowledge. Decisions are made independently of authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, seniority or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the submission.
Where an Editor has a conflict of interest with a submission, responsibility for the manuscript will be assigned to another suitably qualified editor.
Rigorous Review. Fair Decisions. Stronger Scholarship.
JBMA's peer-review process is designed to safeguard scholarly quality while providing authors with constructive and academically meaningful evaluation.
View Aims & Scope Submission Guidelines →