Submissions

Author Guidelines

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)

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.