Review Model

The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors. Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that avoids unnecessary identifying information within the review version.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team before being sent for external peer review. The initial screening considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, completeness, and adherence to the journal's author guidelines.

Manuscripts may be declined at this stage without external review when they are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, methodologically inadequate, predominantly descriptive without sufficient scholarly contribution, affected by serious ethical concerns, or otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewer selection is based on academic competence, disciplinary relevance, research experience, independence, and the absence of known conflicts of interest.

The editorial team seeks to obtain independent assessments from appropriately qualified reviewers. Reviewers who have relationships or interests that may compromise impartiality are expected to decline the review assignment.

3. Number of Reviewers

A manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. The editor may appoint additional reviewers when reports are substantially conflicting, when specialist expertise is required, or when further assessment is necessary to support a fair editorial decision.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts on relevant scholarly criteria, including:

• relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
• originality and significance of the research;
• clarity of the research problem, objectives, or questions;
• appropriateness and rigour of the research methodology;
• quality and transparency of data analysis;
• consistency between results, discussion, and conclusions;
• engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
• theoretical, empirical, managerial, accounting, business, or policy contribution;
• ethical integrity and research transparency; and
• clarity, organisation, and overall scholarly presentation.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Decline Submission

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the responsible editor or Editor in Chief, who considers the reviewer reports, the quality of revisions, journal policies, ethical requirements, and the overall scholarly merit of the manuscript.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should respond carefully to each reviewer and editor comment and submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response explaining how the comments have been addressed.

Authors are not required to accept every reviewer suggestion, but where a recommendation is not followed, the response should provide a clear scholarly justification. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept, request further revision, or decline a manuscript is made by the editorial team. Acceptance is based on the manuscript having satisfactorily addressed relevant editorial and peer-review concerns and meeting the journal's standards for scholarly quality, ethical integrity, and publication readiness.

Completion of peer review does not guarantee publication. The journal reserves the right to decline a manuscript at any stage when substantial scholarly, ethical, legal, or publication integrity concerns are identified.

8. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal, professional, or research advantage.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationship that could reasonably affect impartiality. Where a relevant conflict exists, the individual concerned should not participate in the evaluation or editorial decision for that manuscript.

10. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of scholarly merit and journal policy. The payment of an Article Processing Charge, institutional affiliation, personal relationship, or other non-scholarly consideration does not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palu, as the publisher, supports the editorial independence of Jurnal Sinar Manajemen.

Peer Review Workflow