Peer Review Policy

Overview

ANMJ is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic excellence, transparency, and integrity. All manuscripts submitted to ANMJ undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure originality, methodological quality, theoretical relevance, and ethical compliance in the fields of business, management, and social sciences.

Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review

To guarantee impartiality and academic objectivity:

  • Author Anonymity: Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.

  • Reviewer Anonymity: Authors are not informed of reviewers’ identities.

This model ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on scholarly merit, free from institutional or personal bias.

Peer Review Workflow

  1. Submission & Initial Editorial Screening
    Manuscripts are submitted via the ANMJ online platform. The editorial office conducts a preliminary check for:

    • Alignment with journal scope and aims

    • Formatting compliance and adherence to submission guidelines

    • Required ethical documentation (e.g., IRB approval, if applicable)

    • Plagiarism screening using Turnitin or equivalent tools

    Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be desk-rejected without external review.

  2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment
    Each manuscript passing initial screening is assigned to at least two independent reviewers based on:

    • Subject-matter expertise

    • Publication track record

    • Absence of conflicts of interest

  3. Review Process
    Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on:

    • Originality and contribution to management knowledge

    • Methodological rigor

    • Theoretical and practical relevance

    • Quality of analysis and interpretation

    • Organization, clarity, and scholarly presentation

    Reviewer recommendations include:

    • Accept as is

    • Accept with minor revisions

    • Revise and resubmit (major revisions)

    • Reject

  4. Editorial Decision and Feedback
    The handling editor reviews all reports and issues a final decision. Authors receive a detailed decision letter with anonymized reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review.

    Standard review timeline: 4–6 weeks (may vary based on reviewer response and manuscript complexity). Authors are expected to adhere to revision deadlines to avoid delays.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

  • Selection & Integrity:
    Reviewers are selected for scholarly competence, fairness, and impartiality, representing a diverse global academic community.

  • Confidentiality:
    Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential and must not:

    • Share content externally

    • Use unpublished data for personal benefit

    • Discuss manuscript details without editorial approval

  • Ethical Conduct:
    Reviewers must:

    • Provide unbiased, constructive, and respectful feedback

    • Disclose any conflicts of interest

    • Avoid discriminatory or inappropriate remarks

Appeals Policy

Authors may appeal editorial decisions on grounds of:

  • Factual misunderstandings

  • Reviewer or editorial bias

  • Ethical or procedural errors

Appeals are reviewed by the Editorial Board or an independent academic, whose decisions are final.

Ethical Standards

ANMJ adheres to ethical principles set forth by:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

  • Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan

All participants in the review process must comply with these standards.

Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge reviewer contributions, ANMJ:

  • Publishes an annual list of reviewers (with consent)

  • Provides Certificates of Appreciation upon request

Conclusion

The peer review process is fundamental to ANMJ’s commitment to quality assurance. Through fairness, transparency, and rigorous evaluation, ANMJ ensures that each published article meaningfully advances the fields of business and management scholarship while building trust within the global academic community.