Peer Review Policy

The Journal of International Business, Economics and Entrepreneurship (JIBE) applies a double-blind peer review process to manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening and are considered suitable for further consideration. The process supports the fair, impartial and consistent assessment of manuscripts and contributes to the quality and integrity of the journal's published scholarly work. JIBE's peer review process is conducted in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and related guidance.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their alignment with the journal’s aims and scope and their compliance with basic scholarly, methodological, ethical and submission requirements. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening and are considered suitable for further consideration are sent for double-blind peer review.

Under the double-blind peer review process:

  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

The peer review process is intended to support a fair, impartial and consistent assessment of scholarly work. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, relevance, methodological soundness and the reviewers’ assessments, where applicable.

Editors, reviewers and editorial staff are required to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and all related communications throughout the peer review and editorial decision making process. Manuscripts and associated materials must not be disclosed to or discussed with unauthorised persons, except where disclosure is necessary for the editorial or publication process and is consistent with the journal’s policies.

Manuscripts may be declined at the initial editorial screening stage without external peer review if they fall outside the journal’s aims and scope or do not meet the journal’s basic scholarly, methodological, ethical or submission requirements.

Authors must submit two versions of the manuscript to facilitate double blind peer review:

  • An anonymised manuscript containing no author identifying information for peer review; and
  • A complete manuscript containing all author names, institutional affiliations and corresponding author contact details for editorial use.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Originality and scholarly contribution
  • Methodological and conceptual quality
  • Clarity and academic writing quality
  • Compliance with journal submission requirements

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage without external review if they do not meet basic scholarly or ethical standards.

All submissions are also screened for similarity in accordance with the journal’s Plagiarism and Publication Ethics Policy prior to peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject matter expertise
  • Academic and publication record
  • Absence of conflicts of interest
  • Ability to provide timely and objective evaluation

Where necessary, additional reviewers may be invited to ensure balanced assessment, including cases involving substantially differing reviewer recommendations.

4. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial, institutional, or personal interests.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled by an independent editor with no conflict of interest and are subject to the same double-blind peer review process.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for all editorial decisions.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript materials
  • Declare any conflicts of interest prior to review
  • Decline review invitations where bias or conflict may exist
  • Refrain from using unpublished material for personal advantage
  • Complete reviews within the agreed review period and notify the editor if delays arise

Reviewer reports and manuscript materials are treated as confidential documents and must not be shared without editorial authorization.

Failure to comply with these responsibilities may result in removal from the reviewer database.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated based on:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge
  • Theoretical or conceptual strength
  • Methodological rigor and validity
  • Analytical depth and interpretation of results
  • Clarity, structure, and academic writing quality
  • Relevance to an international scholarly audience

7. Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are made by the editors based on the manuscript, reviewer reports and editorial assessment. Possible outcomes include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments to support revision and improvement.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor may seek an additional independent review or make an editorial determination based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, methodological rigor and relevance to the journal's scope. The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for all editorial decisions.

8. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must:

  • Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
  • Clearly indicate all changes made in the revised manuscript
  • Resubmit within the specified timeframe

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team.

9. Integrity and Ethical Safeguards

The journal ensures integrity of the peer review process through:

  • Reviewer identity verification through institutional or publication records
  • Conflict of interest screening for editors and reviewers
  • Confidential manuscript handling systems
  • Monitoring for unethical review practices

The use of generative artificial intelligence tools in peer review must comply with the confidentiality and data protection requirements of the journal.

Any suspected ethical issues are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines and journal policies.

10. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned justification.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, an independent editorial member not involved in the original decision.

The outcome of the appeal is final.

11. Review Timeline

The typical peer review process takes approximately 6–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and revision requirements.

Delays may occur in cases requiring additional review or extensive revisions.

Policy Integration

This statement forms part of the journal's publication ethics framework and should be read together with the following policies:

 

Policy Version: 2.0
Last Updated: 2026