Peer Review Process

The IFSMRC African International Journal of Research in Management (AIJRM) follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research. The peer review system is designed to maintain academic integrity, improve manuscript quality, and support objective editorial decision-making.

All manuscripts submitted to AIJRM are evaluated through a structured review process involving editorial screening, expert assessment, and final editorial evaluation.

1. Initial Submission Check

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial office to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements
  • Completeness of submission files and declarations
  • Basic language quality and academic presentation
  • Originality and plagiarism screening

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before peer review.

2. Editorial Screening

After the initial submission check, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor conducts a preliminary editorial evaluation to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for external review.

At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for:

  • Academic relevance
  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Methodological soundness
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Ethical compliance

Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal, lack scholarly merit, or fail to meet ethical standards may be rejected at this stage.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

AIJRM follows a double-blind peer review model in which:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors

This process ensures fairness, impartiality, and unbiased evaluation.

Each eligible manuscript is sent to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Relevance to the field
  • Literature and theoretical grounding
  • Research design and methodology
  • Quality of analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity of writing and structure
  • Validity of conclusions
  • Ethical compliance and scholarly integrity

4. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluation, reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions)
  • Reject

Reviewer comments are shared with authors to support revision and manuscript improvement.

5. Editorial Decision

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor based on:

  • Reviewer reports and recommendations
  • Academic merit of the manuscript
  • Compliance with ethical and editorial standards
  • Revisions made by the authors

The editorial decision may be:

  • Accepted for publication
  • Accepted subject to minor revisions
  • Returned for major revisions and resubmission
  • Rejected

The editorial board reserves the right to make the final decision on all submissions.

6. Revision Process

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to:

  • Revise the manuscript carefully in line with reviewer comments
  • Submit a revised manuscript within the requested timeframe
  • Provide a clear point-by-point response to reviewer comments

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, especially in cases of major revisions.

7. Final Acceptance

Once the manuscript satisfies reviewer and editorial expectations, it is formally accepted for publication.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to:

  • Copyediting
  • Proofreading
  • Layout and typesetting
  • Final author proof approval
  • Publication in the journal issue

8. Timeframe of Review Process

AIJRM aims to complete the peer review process efficiently while maintaining review quality.

Estimated timelines are as follows:

  • Initial editorial screening: 3–7 days
  • Peer review process: 2–4 weeks
  • Revision period (author): 1–3 weeks
  • Final editorial decision: 1–2 weeks

These timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.

9. Confidentiality in Peer Review

AIJRM maintains strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

  • Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
  • Reviewer identities remain anonymous
  • Review reports are used solely for editorial decision-making
  • Unpublished manuscript content may not be disclosed or used by reviewers or editors

10. Ethical Integrity of Review

The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the peer review process.

AIJRM does not tolerate:

  • Reviewer bias or misconduct
  • Conflicts of interest in review
  • Breach of confidentiality
  • Manipulation of peer review
  • Unethical editorial influence

Any ethical concerns regarding peer review are investigated seriously and handled in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.

11. Quality Assurance

The peer review process at AIJRM is designed not only to evaluate manuscripts for publication but also to improve the scholarly quality, clarity, and impact of submitted research.

Through constructive review and rigorous editorial oversight, AIJRM ensures that all published articles meet accepted academic and professional standards.