Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Social Business (IJSB) is committed to maintaining a fair, constructive, independent, and academically rigorous peer-review process.

IJSB uses a double-blind peer-review system, meaning that reviewers normally do not know the identities of the authors and authors normally do not know the identities of reviewers. This continues the review model used by the original IJSB.

Step 1 — Submission

Authors submit:

An anonymized manuscript;

A separate title page containing author information; and

Required declarations and supporting information.

Step 2 — Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment.

The manuscript may be checked for:

Fit with the journal's aims and scope;

Originality;

Basic academic quality;

Completeness;

Ethical concerns;

Similarity/plagiarism;

Compliance with submission requirements; and

Suitability for peer review.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it is clearly outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly quality, contains serious ethical concerns, or does not meet basic submission requirements.

This is sometimes referred to as a desk rejection.

Step 3 — Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing editorial screening will normally be sent to independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

IJSB will generally seek at least two independent reviewer reports for full research articles where practicable.

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, academic or professional experience, availability, and absence of significant conflicts of interest.

Step 4 — Double-Blind Review

Authors' identifying information is removed from the manuscript provided to reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to assess areas including:

Originality;

Research question and contribution;

Engagement with relevant literature;

Theoretical or conceptual quality;

Appropriateness of methodology;

Quality of analysis;

Validity of findings;

Quality of discussion and conclusions;

Practical, policy, or theoretical implications;

Clarity and organization; and

Overall suitability for IJSB.

Step 5 — Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewers may recommend:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires relatively limited revisions before it can be considered for acceptance.

Major Revision

Substantial revisions are required and the manuscript may require another round of peer review.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript requires extensive redevelopment but may potentially be considered as a substantially revised new submission.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the appropriate editor.

Step 6 — Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewer reports, manuscript quality, journal scope, ethical requirements, and scholarly contribution when reaching a decision.

Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may:

Assess the reports independently;

Seek clarification;

Invite an additional reviewer; or

Make an editorial judgment based on the available evidence.

Step 7 — Revision

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

A revised manuscript; and

A point-by-point response explaining how reviewer comments have been addressed.

Authors are not required to agree with every reviewer suggestion, but disagreements should be explained respectfully and academically.

Step 8 — Final Decision

After satisfactory revision, the manuscript may receive final acceptance.

Acceptance is based exclusively on scholarly and editorial considerations.

Payment of an APC does not influence whether a manuscript is accepted.

Review Time

The original IJSB stated a peer-review period of approximately 1–2 months.

For the relaunched journal, I recommend stating:

IJSB aims to complete the initial peer-review process within approximately 4–8 weeks, although actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and revision requirements.

The journal cannot guarantee a specific publication date for an individual manuscript.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts without authorization;

Use unpublished information for personal advantage;

Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript; or

Disclose confidential review information.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation or inform the editor where a conflict of interest could reasonably compromise impartial evaluation.

Editors with a conflict involving a manuscript should not make the editorial decision on that submission.

Submissions by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Members of the IJSB editorial team may submit manuscripts to the journal.

Such submissions must be handled independently by another qualified editor, and the submitting editor must not participate in reviewer selection or the final decision.

The same academic standards and peer-review requirements apply.

Reviewer Recognition

IJSB values the voluntary contribution of reviewers to scholarly publishing.

The journal may provide reviewers with appropriate recognition, such as certificates of contribution, subject to maintaining reviewer confidentiality.