Per Review Policy

LAJUMEN: Lajagoe Journal of Management and Business

LAJUMEN applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, objectivity, and academic credibility of all manuscripts submitted for publication. Under this process, the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Editor to determine whether they comply with the journal's:

  • focus and scope;
  • manuscript template and author guidelines;
  • structure and completeness requirements;
  • academic quality and presentation standards;
  • originality and scientific contribution;
  • publication ethics requirements; and
  • plagiarism and similarity requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected at the initial editorial screening stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

The Editor considers the reviewers' academic expertise, research experience, methodological competence, publication experience, and potential conflicts of interest before making an assignment.

Reviewers should not have professional, institutional, financial, personal, or other relationships with the authors that could compromise the objectivity of the review process.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

LAJUMEN uses a double-blind peer review system, in which:

  1. the authors' identities are not disclosed to the reviewers;
  2. the reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors;
  3. manuscripts sent to reviewers should not contain information that directly reveals the authors' identities, where reasonably possible; and
  4. communication concerning the review process is conducted through the journal's editorial system.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
  • originality and novelty;
  • clarity of research objectives and research questions;
  • relevance and adequacy of the literature review;
  • appropriateness of theories and conceptual frameworks;
  • appropriateness of the research methodology;
  • quality and adequacy of data analysis;
  • clarity of research findings;
  • depth and relevance of discussion;
  • consistency between the conclusions and research findings;
  • theoretical and/or practical contributions;
  • quality and relevance of references and citations;
  • clarity of academic writing and manuscript structure; and
  • compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, specific, and academically appropriate comments that can help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

5. Reviewer's Recommendation

Based on the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – the manuscript can be accepted without substantial revision;
  • Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions;
  • Major Revision – the manuscript requires substantial revisions and may require further review;
  • Resubmit for Review – the manuscript requires significant revision and should undergo another review process; or
  • Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, ethical, quality, or scope requirements.

The reviewers' recommendations serve as important considerations for the Editor. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must revise their manuscripts according to the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and Editor.

Authors are expected to submit a response to reviewers explaining:

  1. how each reviewer comment has been addressed;
  2. where changes have been made in the revised manuscript; and
  3. the academic rationale for any reviewer recommendation that cannot be fully implemented.

The Editor may send a revised manuscript back to the reviewers for further evaluation when substantial revisions have been made.

7. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified by the Editor. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the designated period, the reviewer should promptly notify the Editor.

To maintain an efficient editorial process, the Editor may extend the review period, appoint an alternative reviewer, or assign an additional reviewer when necessary.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and information obtained during the peer review process must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with any third party without permission from the Editor;
  • use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage;
  • discuss the manuscript with others;
  • use unpublished ideas or findings for their own research or benefit; or
  • contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript under review.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their evaluation.

Conflicts of interest may include academic, institutional, professional, financial, personal, research collaboration, or other relationships that could influence the review.

If a conflict of interest cannot be adequately managed, the reviewer should decline the review assignment.

10. Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should notify the Editor if they identify potential concerns relating to:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • data fabrication;
  • data falsification;
  • research ethics violations;
  • inappropriate or excessive citation practices; or
  • other potential breaches of publication ethics.

The Editor will investigate such concerns in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and applicable scholarly publishing standards.

11. Editorial Independence

The Editors of LAJUMEN are responsible for maintaining the independence, fairness, and objectivity of the editorial process.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, contribution to the field, and conformity with the journal's scope and ethical standards.

Editorial decisions should not be influenced by personal, institutional, political, commercial, or other non-academic interests.

12. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor makes the final decision by considering:

  • the reviewers' evaluations;
  • reviewers' comments and recommendations;
  • the authors' responses and revisions;
  • the scientific quality of the manuscript;
  • the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope; and
  • publication ethics considerations.

The final editorial decision may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit for Review, or Reject.

The Editor's decision represents the journal's final editorial assessment of the manuscript.

13. Reviewer Recognition

LAJUMEN recognizes the important contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers who complete their assignments responsibly and constructively may receive appropriate acknowledgment in accordance with the journal's reviewer recognition policy.