Review Process.

Review Process – International Business Administration Journal

Review Process

International Business Administration Journal

The International Business Administration Journal follows a transparent and rigorous peer-review workflow consistent with international publishing standards and the expectations associated with journals registered with an ISSN. The process ensures academic integrity, research quality, and ethical publication practices.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts through the journal’s official online submission system. Each submission must include:

  • Full manuscript in the required format
  • Abstract, keywords, and author details
  • Declaration of originality and copyright statement
  • Ethical compliance statements (if applicable)

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts a preliminary assessment to ensure:

  • The manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope
  • Compliance with formatting guidelines
  • Absence of plagiarism (checked using similarity-checking software)
  • Completeness of required documents

Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements may be returned to authors for revision or rejected without review.

3. Assignment to an Editor

A qualified Subject Editor (or Associate Editor) is assigned based on the topic area. The editor evaluates:

  • Relevance
  • Originality
  • Academic quality
  • Ethical considerations

If deemed suitable, the manuscript proceeds to peer review.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, where neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and impartiality.
  • At least two independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript.
  • A third reviewer may be invited in case of conflicting evaluations.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

  • Contribution to the field of business administration
  • Literature grounding and theoretical basis
  • Methodological rigor
  • Data quality and analysis
  • Clarity, structure, and originality
  • Ethical compliance, including conflict-of-interest issues

Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

5. Editorial Decision

The Subject Editor reviews the peer-review reports and makes a decision in one of the following categories:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Revise and Resubmit for New Review
  • Reject

The decision is communicated to the authors along with anonymized reviewer comments.

6. Revision Stage

Authors must:

  • Submit a revised manuscript
  • Provide a point-by-point response to reviewers
  • Highlight all changes made

Revisions may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers if necessary.

7. Final Acceptance

Once revisions meet scientific and editorial requirements, the Editor-in-Chief gives final approval for publication. Acceptance is based on:

  • Quality improvement
  • Compliance with recommendations
  • Ethical adherence
  • Contribution to scholarly literature

8. Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Language editing
  • Technical formatting
  • Reference and citation corrections
  • Layout preparation

Authors review the proofs before publication to ensure accuracy.

9. Online First Publication

Finalized articles may be published online ahead of the issue release (“Online First”), ensuring timely dissemination.

10. Issue Compilation and Publication

Articles are assigned to an issue and published according to the journal’s publication schedule. Each issue includes:

  • ISSN details
  • Volume/issue number
  • DOI assignment (if applicable)
  • Publication date

11. Post-Publication Ethics

The journal adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards for:

  • Corrections
  • Retractions
  • Editorial notices
  • Handling misconduct or ethical violations