Reviewer Management

Reviewer Management Policy

ACADEMIA Nextgen Management Journal (ANMJ)

Overview

At ACADEMIA Nextgen Management Journal, a robust and ethically grounded reviewer management system is central to our commitment to academic excellence, scholarly integrity, and editorial transparency. Our peer review model ensures each submission is evaluated rigorously, fairly, and in a timely manner by qualified reviewers in the field of management sciences.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

Subject Expertise

Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise in key areas such as:

  • Strategic Management

  • Organizational Behavior

  • Human Resource Management

  • Innovation and Entrepreneurship

  • Leadership Studies

  • Business Analytics and Operations

Selection criteria include:

  • Academic credentials and research background

  • Track record of publications in peer-reviewed journals

  • Familiarity with both qualitative and quantitative methodologies

Diversity and Representation

ANMJ is committed to building a reviewer pool that reflects global diversity in terms of academic disciplines, institutions, career stages, and gender representation to ensure balanced, unbiased scholarly evaluations.

Reviewer Invitation

Prospective reviewers receive formal invitations that include:

  • Manuscript title and abstract

  • Expected review timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks)

  • Disclosure of conflicts of interest

Reviewers may accept or decline based on availability and relevance.

Reviewer Database

The reviewer pool is maintained and expanded through:

  • Literature reviews and author networks

  • Referrals from editorial board members

  • Conference participation and academic networking

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

Double-Blind Review Model

ANMJ uses a double-blind peer review system:

  • Reviewer and author identities remain anonymous

  • Bias is minimized and objectivity is prioritized

Workload Balance

The editorial team ensures fair distribution of assignments to maintain quality and avoid overburdening individual reviewers.

Inclusive Opportunities

ANMJ encourages a blend of experienced and early-career researchers in the review process to promote mentorship and community-building within the academic ecosystem.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Guidelines

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to management literature

  • Research methodology and design appropriateness

  • Analytical depth and clarity of results

  • Theoretical and practical relevance

  • Ethical considerations and referencing standards

Timeliness

Reviews should be submitted within the agreed-upon timeframe (2–4 weeks). Requests for deadline extensions may be accommodated when communicated in advance.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscript content with others

  • Use unpublished data for personal or academic gain

  • Discuss manuscript details outside the review process

Ethical Oversight

Reviewers are expected to flag:

  • Suspected plagiarism or unethical practices

  • Data manipulation or significant reporting inconsistencies

  • Any personal conflicts of interest

4. Communication and Support

Editorial Assistance

Editors are available to:

  • Clarify review expectations

  • Provide technical support during submission

  • Mediate in case of reviewer concerns or difficulties

Reviewer Recognition

ANMJ values and acknowledges its reviewers by offering:

  • Certificates of appreciation (upon request)

  • Annual recognition listings on the journal website

  • Invitations to serve on the editorial board based on performance

5. Quality Assurance in Peer Review

Performance Monitoring

Reviews are assessed on:

  • Analytical depth and relevance

  • Constructive and respectful tone

  • Timely submission and reviewer engagement

Inadequate or poor-quality reviews may lead to removal from the reviewer pool or formal disqualification.

Handling Conflicting Reviews

If reviewer recommendations diverge significantly:

  • A third expert may be consulted

  • The Editor-in-Chief may make an independent decision based on balanced input

Periodic Evaluation

Reviewers are periodically reviewed for consistency and quality. Top-performing reviewers are prioritized for future assignments and editorial roles.

6. Reviewer Development and Incentives

Acknowledgment and Visibility

High-performing reviewers are featured in ANMJ’s annual report and highlighted in editorial communications.

Capacity Building

ANMJ promotes reviewer development through:

  • Webinars and workshops on peer review practices

  • Training in academic ethics and research transparency

  • Mentorship and editorial collaboration opportunities

Incentives (In Development)

ANMJ is exploring reviewer benefits including:

  • APC (Article Processing Charge) waivers or discounts

  • Priority processing for reviewer-authored manuscripts

  • Exclusive access to academic resources and tools

7. Managing Conflicts and Misconduct

Conflict of Interest

All reviewers must disclose:

  • Financial interests

  • Institutional affiliations

  • Collaborative or competitive relationships with the authors

In such cases, the manuscript will be reassigned to an alternate reviewer.

Misconduct Handling

Reviewer misconduct includes:

  • Breach of confidentiality

  • Inappropriate or harmful commentary

  • Unauthorized use of manuscript data

Violations are handled by the editorial board and may result in:

  • Suspension or removal from the reviewer panel

  • Notification to affiliated institutions

  • Reporting to COPE or other regulatory bodies if warranted

Conclusion

The ACADEMIA Nextgen Management Journal upholds the highest standards in reviewer management, rooted in fairness, integrity, and professionalism. By fostering a collaborative and ethical peer review ecosystem, we ensure the continuous publication of high-impact, rigorously reviewed research in management and related disciplines.