Decision-Making Process

Editorial Decision-Making Process

ACADEMIA Nextgen Management Journal (ANMJ)

At ACADEMIA Nextgen Management Journal, we are committed to a transparent, structured, and impartial editorial process. Each manuscript is assessed with academic rigor to ensure it meets the standards of originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and scholarly contribution within the field of management sciences.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Preliminary Editorial Review
Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial screening to verify:

  • Compliance with ANMJ’s formatting and submission guidelines (title, abstract, keywords, references, etc.)

  • Plagiarism check (strict 10% similarity threshold, aligned with international academic standards)

  • Completion of required elements including author information, funding declarations, ethical statements, and licensing agreements

Scope and Relevance Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or relevant Section Editor evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus on management, leadership, strategy, innovation, or organizational development. Submissions falling outside ANMJ’s scope may be desk-rejected without external review.

2. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with domain-specific expertise. ANMJ uses a double-blind peer review model to ensure objectivity.

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and theoretical/practical contribution to management knowledge

  • Methodological soundness and research design

  • Clarity and logic of findings and conclusions

  • Ethical standards and citation accuracy

  • Relevance to management scholars and practitioners

Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers recommend one of the following outcomes:

✅ Accept
✏️ Minor Revisions (editor review only)
???? Major Revisions (may require re-review)
❌ Reject

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

Review Synthesis
The handling editor consolidates reviewer feedback. If reviewer opinions diverge significantly, a third reviewer may be assigned or the case escalated to the editorial board for consultation.

Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final determination based on reviewer reports and internal assessment. Decisions include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions Required

  • Major Revisions Required

  • Reject

A detailed decision letter, including anonymized reviewer comments, is sent to the corresponding author.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions
Authors are typically given 2–4 weeks to revise. The revised version is assessed by the handling editor.

Major Revisions
Authors are allowed 4–8 weeks to revise and resubmit. Depending on the extent of revisions, the manuscript may undergo a second round of peer review.

Resubmission After Rejection
Rejected manuscripts are generally not reconsidered. However, if substantial improvements are recommended, resubmission as a new manuscript may be permitted at the discretion of the editorial board.

5. Communication and Appeals

Decision Notification
Authors receive a formal email containing:

  • Editorial decision

  • Consolidated reviewer feedback

  • Next steps for revision or publication

Appeals Process
Appeals must be submitted in writing with a clear justification. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated review panel. All appeal decisions are final.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

Final Submission Requirements
Following acceptance, authors must submit:

  • Final revised manuscript

  • Author biographies

  • Signed copyright and licensing agreement

  • High-resolution figures/tables (if applicable)

Copyediting and Proofing
Manuscripts are professionally copyedited for clarity and consistency. Authors receive page proofs for final approval before publication.

Online Publication
Accepted articles are published in the upcoming issue of ANMJ and made openly accessible under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

7. Ethical Oversight

Conflict of Interest
All authors, reviewers, and editors must declare any conflicts of interest, including financial, institutional, or personal ties.

Ethical Compliance
Research involving human subjects, surveys, or sensitive data must include evidence of ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable.

Data and Integrity
The journal upholds high standards of data transparency, accuracy, and reproducibility. Any cases of data fabrication or unethical conduct will be investigated thoroughly, and may result in retraction and institutional notification.

This editorial decision-making framework reflects ANMJ’s dedication to scholarly excellence, editorial transparency, and the advancement of management research through ethical and responsible publishing practices.