Review Guidelines


Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government (CIBGP) adheres to a rigorous academic standard, underpinned by our double-blind peer review policy. This process ensures that both the authors' and reviewers' identities remain confidential throughout the review. Our commitment is to uphold the highest standards of impartiality and fairness. The policy aims to eliminate bias, whether based on gender, geographic origin, or academic status. We believe that such a robust process enhances the quality and credibility of the research we publish, contributing significantly to the field of business and government studies. This policy is a cornerstone of our academic integrity, ensuring that all submissions are evaluated purely on their academic merit and relevance to our journal's scope.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are entrusted with the critical task of assessing the quality and validity of research submitted to CIBGP. Their primary responsibility is to provide a thorough, objective, and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts for their scientific accuracy, originality, and contribution to the field. They should offer constructive criticism and clear guidance to improve the quality of the paper. Reviewers must adhere to the stipulated timelines to ensure a swift review process. It is also their responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts and any information they contain. They should avoid any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if such conflicts arise. The role of a reviewer is not just to critique but also to be a mentor, guiding authors towards enhancing the quality and impact of their research.

3. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts submitted to CIBGP are evaluated on a range of criteria to ensure they meet the journal's high standards. The primary focus is on the originality and significance of the research. Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge or insights to the field of business and government? The methodology should be sound and appropriate for the research questions posed. Clarity of expression and coherence in the argumentation are also vital. The manuscript should be well-structured, with a logical flow that is easy to follow. We also assess the manuscript's relevance to our readership and its potential impact on the field. Manuscripts should adhere to ethical research standards, including proper acknowledgment of sources and adherence to data protection regulations. The evaluation criteria are comprehensive to ensure that published articles are of the highest academic and ethical standards.

4. Maintaining Anonymity

Anonymity is a pillar of our double-blind review process. It guarantees that both authors and reviewers are unknown to each other, removing any unconscious bias that might influence the review's outcome. This practice is particularly important in a field like business and government, where affiliations or known stances on specific issues could sway judgment. For authors, this means that their work is judged solely on its academic merit, not their reputation or institutional affiliation. For reviewers, it provides a freedom to critique honestly and thoroughly without fear of repercussions. Ensuring anonymity requires careful management by our editorial team, who are responsible for anonymizing manuscripts and managing the review process. They remove any identifying information from manuscripts and ensure that communication between authors and reviewers is mediated to maintain this separation.

5. Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest can arise when personal or financial relationships have the potential to bias judgment. At CIBGP, we take conflicts of interest seriously and have a robust system in place to identify and manage them. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. This includes any personal, financial, or professional connections with the work being reviewed or its authors. If a significant conflict is identified, the reviewer is recused from the review process. Authors are also required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their research. This transparency is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the review process and the credibility of the research we publish. In cases where conflicts of interest are identified post-publication, we are committed to taking appropriate action, which may include corrections, retractions, or other editorial notices.

6. Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations in peer review encompass a wide range of practices, from ensuring the originality of submitted work to safeguarding human subjects in research. Reviewers are tasked with identifying any potential ethical issues within the manuscripts they assess. This includes flagging possible plagiarism, data fabrication, or manipulation. They must also ensure that research involving human subjects was conducted ethically and with appropriate oversight. Any concerns about ethical breaches should be reported immediately to the editorial team for further investigation. Our ethical guidelines are aligned with international standards and COPE guidelines. We are committed to upholding these standards and expect the same from our authors and reviewers. Ethical considerations are not just a set of rules but are at the heart of responsible and credible academic practice.

7. Decision-Making Process

The decision-making process for manuscript publication at CIBGP is rigorous and multi-layered. Following the receipt of reviews, the editorial team carefully considers all feedback. Decisions are not made solely based on reviewer recommendations; instead, they are a starting point for a deeper editorial evaluation. We consider the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope, its overall quality, and its potential impact. The editorial team may also consult additional experts or seek further reviews when necessary. Our decision-making process is transparent, and we strive to provide authors with clear explanations for our decisions. Acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions are communicated to authors along with detailed reviewer comments. The integrity and fairness of this process are paramount, as they underpin the trust our readers and contributors place in us.

8. Revision and Resubmission

The opportunity for revision and resubmission is an integral part of the peer review process. Authors whose manuscripts are not accepted outright are often given the chance to revise their work based on the reviewers' feedback. This process is aimed at strengthening the research and improving the clarity and impact of the manuscript. Authors are provided with detailed feedback and are expected to address each point raised by the reviewers. On resubmission, the manuscript is typically reviewed again to ensure that the revisions have adequately addressed the initial concerns. This iterative process is crucial for maintaining the quality of publications in CIBGP. We recognize that this can be demanding for authors, but we believe it is a valuable part of developing high-quality academic work.

9. Appeals Process

We acknowledge that there may be instances where authors disagree with editorial decisions. To ensure fairness, CIBGP has an appeals process in place. Authors wishing to appeal a decision should submit a detailed explanation of their reasons. Appeals are considered carefully and are reviewed by a senior member of the editorial team or an external advisor not involved in the original decision. This process ensures an independent reassessment of the manuscript and the decision. We aim to resolve appeals promptly and fairly, and the outcome of the appeal is final. It is important to note that appeals should be based on specific concerns regarding the review process or interpretation of the manuscript, not merely dissatisfaction with the original decision.

10. Policy Updates

The field of academic publishing is dynamic, and policies and practices evolve over time. Our Double-Blind Peer Review Policy is therefore subject to regular review and updates. These updates are done in consultation with our editorial board, advisors, and in alignment with changes in international standards and best practices in scholarly publishing. We aim to stay at the forefront of ethical and effective publishing practices. Updates to our policy are communicated to our authors, reviewers, and readers through our website and other channels. We encourage feedback on our policies and practices as part of our commitment to continuous improvement and excellence in publishing.