Peer Review Proces
Peer Review Process
Journal of Digital Management (JDM) applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and scientific contribution of all manuscripts considered for publication.
All submitted manuscripts undergo a Double-Blind Peer Review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This model is designed to promote fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, and academic integrity in the evaluation of manuscripts.
Review Process at a Glance
01. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Team to assess its suitability for further review.
02. Peer Review Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. The Editorial Team selects reviewers based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and subject-area relevance.
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers assess the manuscript objectively and provide constructive recommendations to assist the authors and editors in determining its suitability for publication.
03. Review Criteria
Original findings, ideas, approaches, or perspectives.
Relevance of the research problem and findings to the journal scope.
Adequacy, relevance, and currency of theoretical foundations and references.
Rigor and appropriateness of research design, methods, data, and analysis.
Clarity, validity, interpretation, and discussion of research findings.
Significance of findings for theory, research, practice, or policy.
Clarity, organization, consistency, and academic quality.
Relevance, quality, currency, and appropriate use of scholarly sources.
04. Editorial Decision
After the peer-review process, the Editorial Team evaluates the reviewers' recommendations and determines the appropriate editorial decision.
The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor in Chief based on the reviewers' recommendations and the overall editorial assessment.
05. Revision and Resubmission
Authors receiving a revision decision are required to address the reviewers' comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Team.
Authors should provide a clear response to each reviewer comment and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
06. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards
All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Digital Management (JDM) are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in manuscripts for personal or professional purposes.
Reviewers are expected to declare any potential conflict of interest and decline the review assignment when their impartiality may be compromised.
07. Publication Misconduct
JDM reserves the right to take appropriate action in cases involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other forms of publication misconduct.
Where ethical concerns are identified, the Editorial Team may request clarification, supporting documentation, or further information from the relevant parties and may take appropriate corrective action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.
Journal of Digital Management (JDM) is committed to conducting a fair, objective, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process. The journal continuously seeks to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field of digital management.
