Peer Review Policy

  • t

    The Journal of Data Analysis and Critical Management follows a double-blind peer review process, ensuring impartial and high-quality evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the journal's academic integrity and research excellence. The following guidelines outline the review process, expectations, and ethical considerations.

    1. Peer Review Process
    1. Initial Screening
      • The editorial team performs a preliminary review to check for plagiarism (must be below 15%), relevance to the journal’s scope, formatting compliance, and language clarity.
      • Manuscripts failing to meet the basic criteria are returned to the authors for revision or outright rejection.
    2. Assignment to Reviewers
      • Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
      • Reviewers remain anonymous to authors, and vice versa (double-blind review).
    3. Review Duration
      • Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation within 3-4 weeks of receiving the manuscript.
      • If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the editorial team promptly.
    4. Review Criteria
      Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following:
      • Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s scope and focus areas?
      • Originality & Contribution: Does the study offer new insights, methodologies, or perspectives?
      • Methodology: Are the research design, data collection, and analysis methods appropriate and well-explained?
      • Clarity & Organization: Is the manuscript well-structured, coherent, and free of major language issues?
      • Data Accuracy & Interpretation: Are the results well-supported by data and properly interpreted?
      • References & Citations: Are sources cited appropriately according to the APA 7th edition format?
    5. Recommendation Categories
      Reviewers must provide one of the following recommendations:
      • Accept as is (minor or no revisions required)
      • Accept with minor revisions (small changes needed before publication)
      • Revise and resubmit (major revisions required; manuscript will go through another round of review)
      • Reject (not suitable for publication in the journal)
    1. Reviewer Responsibilities
    • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential and must not share its content with others.
    • Constructive Feedback: Comments should be specific, detailed, and professional, providing clear suggestions for improvement.
    • Conflict of Interest: If a reviewer identifies any conflict of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationship with the author), they should decline the review and notify the editor.
    • Ethical Oversight: Reviewers should report any concerns regarding plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical misconduct.
    1. Ethical Considerations
    • Reviewers should not use any unpublished data or insights from the manuscript for personal research.
    • Bias should be avoided—evaluations must be based solely on academic merit, without discrimination.
    • If a reviewer suspects any form of academic dishonesty, they should inform the editorial team rather than contacting the authors directly.
    1. Post-Review Process
    • The editorial team consolidates reviewer comments and makes a final decision.
    • If revisions are required, authors will be given a deadline to submit their revised manuscript.
    • In cases of conflicting reviewer feedback, a third expert may be consulted.