Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Masyrif: Journal of Economics, Business, and Management

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

Masyrif: Journal of Economics, Business, and Management applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of published articles. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by two or three independent reviewers, depending on the manuscript's subject matter, complexity, and the editor's assessment of the need for additional expert evaluation. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and relevant experience.

The standard review period is approximately 4–8 weeks from the assignment of reviewers. However, the actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial technical and administrative assessment to determine whether the manuscript complies with the journal's submission requirements and editorial policies.

This screening includes an assessment of:

  1. Compliance with the journal's focus and scope.

  2. Adherence to the journal's manuscript template and submission guidelines.

  3. Completeness of the required manuscript components.

  4. Relevance and significance of the research topic.

  5. Basic academic quality, originality, and clarity of presentation.

  6. Compliance with publication ethics and the journal's plagiarism policy.

Manuscripts that do not meet the technical or administrative requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before proceeding to peer review. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or fail to meet the minimum standards of academic quality may be rejected without external review.

3. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are forwarded to the double-blind peer review stage. The editor assigns two or three independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.

The number of reviewers is determined by the editor based on the nature of the research, the complexity of the manuscript, and the need for additional academic assessment. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, provide constructive feedback, and maintain the confidentiality of all materials received.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when they cannot provide an impartial assessment. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  1. Originality and contribution: The novelty of the research and its contribution to the development of knowledge in economics, business, and management.

  2. Relevance and significance: The importance of the research problem and its suitability for the journal's focus and scope.

  3. Literature review and theoretical framework: The adequacy, relevance, and critical engagement with previous studies and relevant theories.

  4. Research methodology: The appropriateness, clarity, and rigor of the research design, data collection, and analytical methods.

  5. Results and discussion: The accuracy of the presentation, depth of analysis, interpretation of findings, and connection between the findings and existing literature.

  6. Conclusions and implications: The extent to which the conclusions are supported by the findings and the clarity of the study's theoretical, practical, or policy implications.

  7. References and citations: The relevance, accuracy, and adequacy of cited sources.

  8. Clarity and academic writing: The organization, readability, language quality, and overall presentation of the manuscript.

  9. Research and publication ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical standards, including research integrity, proper attribution, and the responsible use of data.

Reviewers provide written comments and recommendations to assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision.

5. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the editor evaluates the recommendations and determines the appropriate decision. The possible decisions are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial or production requirements.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially alter its overall structure or main findings.

  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions to improve its theoretical foundation, methodology, analysis, discussion, or other important aspects.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements for publication.

The editor is not bound solely by the reviewers' recommendations and retains responsibility for the final editorial decision. When reviewers provide conflicting assessments, the editor may request an additional review, including from a third reviewer, or conduct further editorial assessment before making a decision.

6. Communication of Review Results and Manuscript Revision

The editor communicates the review decision and relevant reviewer comments to the corresponding author through the journal's online submission system or official editorial communication channels.

When revisions are required, the editor specifies the revision deadline. Authors must revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments and editorial instructions. A point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed should accompany the revised manuscript. If an author does not adopt a particular recommendation, a clear academic justification should be provided.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested. The editor determines whether additional review is necessary based on the extent and significance of the revisions.

If the authors fail to submit the revised manuscript within the specified period, the editor may contact the authors to clarify the status of the revision or close the submission, subject to editorial consideration.

7. Final Editorial Assessment and Author Approval

After the review and revision stages have been completed, the editor conducts a final assessment to determine whether the manuscript has adequately addressed the reviewers' comments and fulfilled the journal's publication requirements.

Manuscripts approved for publication proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and layout preparation as applicable. The final publication-ready version is then sent to the corresponding author for verification and approval before publication.

Authors are responsible for carefully checking the final version, including the accuracy of names, affiliations, tables, figures, references, and other manuscript details. Once the authors have approved the final publication-ready version, no further changes may be made without the editor's authorization.

Final publication is subject to the completion of the journal's editorial and production procedures.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

All manuscripts submitted to Masyrif are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained through the editorial and peer review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, evidence-based, and timely evaluations. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, or other potential ethical violations must be reported to the editor for further assessment.

Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest. Editorial decisions must be made on academic merit, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and compliance with publication ethics, without discrimination based on personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, or other irrelevant considerations.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the editor. Appeals must provide clear academic grounds and relevant supporting information. The editor will assess the appeal fairly and may seek additional expert advice when necessary.

Complaints concerning the conduct of editors, reviewers, authors, or the peer review process will be handled confidentially and in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies. The journal reserves the right to take appropriate action when evidence of misconduct or procedural irregularity is identified.

10. Final Responsibility for Publication Decisions

The editor-in-chief and the editorial team retain final responsibility for publication decisions. Acceptance depends on the manuscript's academic quality, originality, relevance to the journal's scope, adequacy of revisions, and compliance with ethical and editorial standards.

The peer review process is intended to support transparent, fair, and rigorous scholarly communication and to ensure that articles published in Masyrif: Journal of Economics, Business, and Management meet appropriate academic standards.