Peer-Review Policy

Peer-Review Policy

  1. Policy Statement

Global Perspectives in Management (GPIM) is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, independent, confidential, and transparent peer-review process. Peer review is intended to evaluate the scholarly quality, originality, validity, relevance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

All manuscripts are considered according to their academic merit and relevance to the journal's aims and scope. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly considerations and must not be influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, or ability to pay publication fees.

  1. Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's designated online submission system in accordance with the published author guidelines.

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
  • Meets the basic submission and formatting requirements.
  • Demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly relevance.
  • Contains the necessary information, references, and supporting materials.
  • Complies with the journal's publication ethics and research integrity requirements.
  • Is suitable for external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined before external peer review. Passing the initial assessment does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

  1. Double-Blind Peer-Review Process

GPIM follows a double-blind peer-review process. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file prepared for review, including names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, and other details that may reveal their identities. Relevant identifying information should be provided separately through the submission system.

The editorial office takes reasonable measures to protect the identities of authors and reviewers. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where the research, references, or other manuscript details may reveal an author's identity.

  1. Selection and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, relevant research experience, academic qualifications, and ability to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript.

The journal aims to appoint reviewers who can assess the submission independently and provide constructive, evidence-based recommendations.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate the manuscript fairly, objectively, and professionally.
  • Assess the originality, methodology, findings, and scholarly contribution of the work.
  • Provide clear explanations and constructive recommendations.
  • Identify relevant published research that has not been appropriately acknowledged, where applicable.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, or other ethical concerns to the editor.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review materials.
  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Decline a review assignment when a conflict of interest or lack of relevant expertise could compromise the quality or impartiality of the assessment.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not independently determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

  1. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts using the following criteria, as applicable to the article type:

  1. Originality and novelty: The extent to which the manuscript offers original ideas, findings, analysis, or perspectives.
  2. Relevance and scope: The suitability of the manuscript for the aims and scope of GPIM.
  3. Research significance: The importance and potential contribution of the work to management scholarship and related disciplines.
  4. Literature review: The adequacy, relevance, currency, and critical engagement with existing literature.
  5. Methodology: The appropriateness, clarity, and rigor of the research design, methods, and data collection procedures.
  6. Analysis and interpretation: The validity of the analysis, the consistency of the findings with the evidence, and the appropriateness of the conclusions.
  7. Presentation and organization: The clarity, structure, readability, and logical development of the manuscript.
  8. References and citations: The accuracy, relevance, and completeness of citations and references.
  9. Research ethics and integrity: Compliance with applicable ethical requirements, responsible reporting, and appropriate disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding.
  10. Overall scholarly contribution: The value of the manuscript to researchers, practitioners, policymakers, or other relevant audiences.

The relative importance of these criteria may vary according to the manuscript's subject, research design, and intended contribution.

  1. Editorial Decisions

Following the review process, the responsible editor evaluates the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly quality, and its compliance with the journal's policies.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any remaining editorial requirements.
  • Minor Revision: The authors must address limited concerns or make relatively minor corrections.
  • Major Revision: The authors must address substantial concerns relating to the research, analysis, interpretation, presentation, or other aspects of the manuscript.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

Where reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the editor may seek additional expert opinions or conduct further assessment before reaching a decision.

The final decision rests with the responsible editor. Acceptance is not guaranteed by submission, completion of peer review, or payment of any applicable publication charge.

  1. Revision and Resubmission

When revision is required, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the specified deadline and provide a structured response to the reviewers' comments.

The response should address each comment individually and explain the corresponding changes made to the manuscript. Where an author disagrees with a recommendation, a clear academic justification should be provided.

Authors should ensure that substantive revisions are clearly identifiable in the revised manuscript, in accordance with the editorial instructions.

Revised manuscripts may undergo further editorial assessment or be returned to the original reviewers or other appropriate experts. The editor may request additional revisions if significant concerns remain unresolved.

Resubmission of a revised manuscript does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

  1. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Manuscripts submitted to GPIM, reviewer identities, review reports, and related editorial communications must be treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished manuscript content to unauthorized individuals or use information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

Manuscripts and review materials must not be shared with external individuals or third-party services in ways that violate confidentiality, applicable data protection requirements, or the journal's policies.

Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is necessary to investigate suspected misconduct or comply with applicable legal or ethical obligations.

  1. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

Conflicts may include financial relationships, professional competition, close personal relationships, institutional relationships, collaboration with authors, or other circumstances that could influence judgment.

Individuals with a conflict that may compromise their independence must decline the assignment or withdraw from the relevant editorial responsibilities. Where necessary, the journal will arrange for an independent editor or reviewer to handle the manuscript.

Authors must also disclose relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal's author guidelines.

  1. Editorial Independence and Review Integrity

Peer review and editorial decisions must be conducted independently and without coercion, favoritism, or improper influence.

Editors must base decisions on the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and the evidence available through the review process.

Commercial interests, publication charges, personal relationships, and external pressure must not determine the outcome of peer review.

Any concerns regarding reviewer conduct, editorial interference, confidentiality breaches, or irregularities in the review process should be reported to the journal for appropriate investigation.

  1. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was affected by a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or misunderstanding of the manuscript may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

The appeal must clearly identify the grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence where appropriate. Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not guarantee reconsideration.

Where practicable, the appeal should be assessed by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. The journal may seek an independent opinion when necessary.

The outcome of an appeal will depend on the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The journal's decision following the appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author.

  1. Review Timelines

The duration of peer review may vary depending on the availability of qualified reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for additional assessments, and the extent of revisions required.

GPIM does not guarantee acceptance or a specific publication timeline. Any estimated review periods communicated by the journal should be understood as indicative rather than a guarantee of a particular outcome or decision date.

The editorial office monitors submissions and review progress to support the timely handling of manuscripts while maintaining the integrity and quality of the process.

  1. Monitoring and Continuous Improvement

The editorial office is responsible for monitoring the peer-review process to support consistency, fairness, confidentiality, and adherence to the journal's policies.

The journal may periodically review its procedures to identify areas for improvement, address concerns, and maintain appropriate standards of scholarly publishing.

Any changes to the peer-review policy will be communicated through the journal's official website.

  1. Policy Compliance

Authors, reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the publication process are expected to comply with this policy and the journal's related publication ethics requirements.

Failure to comply with the policy may result in appropriate action, depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue. Such action may include withdrawal of a review assignment, rejection of a manuscript, further investigation, or correction of the published record where justified.

This policy should be read together with GPIM's publication ethics statement, author guidelines, copyright and licensing policy, and other applicable journal policies.