Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy for UJLBM

TMP Universal Journal of Law, Business, and Management (UJLBM) follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to maintain the highest academic standards and ensure the quality of the research published in the journal. This Peer Review Policy outlines the key elements of the peer review procedure and the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors.

  1. Peer Review Type
  • UJLBM follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.
  • This ensures unbiased evaluations based solely on the scientific merit of the work, without any personal or professional influence.
  1. Review Process
  • Submission: Upon submission, the manuscript is initially reviewed by the editorial team for compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and general quality standards.
  • Reviewer Selection: If the manuscript passes the initial review, it is then sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the field relevant to the submitted article.
  • Reviewers' Evaluation: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on several criteria, including:
    • Relevance to the journal's scope.
    • Originality and novelty of the research.
    • Methodological soundness.
    • Clarity and organization of the content.
    • Relevance and accuracy of references.
  • Reviewer's Recommendation: Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no major revisions required.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript can be accepted once the authors address specific minor concerns.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes before reconsideration.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' feedback and recommendations, the editorial team makes a final decision on the manuscript, either accepting it, requesting revisions, or rejecting it.
  1. Confidentiality
  • The identities of both the authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process, ensuring impartiality and a fair evaluation.
  • Reviewers are asked to keep the content of the manuscript confidential and refrain from discussing or disclosing the details of the manuscript with anyone else.
  1. Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Impartiality: Reviewers must evaluate the manuscript objectively based on its scientific and academic quality, without any personal or professional bias.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide detailed and constructive feedback that helps the author(s) improve the manuscript. This feedback should be clear, respectful, and professional.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. They should recuse themselves from reviewing if they have any professional, personal, or financial interest in the article.
  1. Author Responsibilities
  • Revisions: Authors are required to make all necessary revisions based on the reviewers' feedback. If an article is requested to undergo revisions, the authors should submit a revised version along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
  • Ethical Conduct: Authors should ensure that their research is conducted ethically, and that proper citations and references are included in the manuscript to avoid plagiarism or other ethical issues.
  • Resubmission: If the manuscript requires major revisions, the authors should carefully revise it and resubmit it within the specified time frame.
  1. Editorial Team Responsibilities
  • The editorial team ensures the integrity of the peer review process by selecting appropriate reviewers, maintaining confidentiality, and providing clear communication with authors and reviewers.
  • Editors are also responsible for making the final decision regarding the publication of an article, based on the peer review feedback and the quality of the manuscript.
  1. Review Time
  • The journal aims to complete the peer review process within 4 to 6 weeks from the date the manuscript is submitted. However, the actual time may vary depending on the availability of suitable reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript.
  1. Appeal Process
  • In case an author disagrees with the decision made by the editorial team after peer review, they can request a reconsideration of the decision by submitting a formal appeal.
  • The appeal will be reviewed by a different set of editors, and the final decision will be communicated to the author(s).
  1. Transparency
  • The UJLBM is committed to ensuring a transparent and fair peer review process. All parties involved in the process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, should have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities.

This Peer Review Policy ensures that UJLBM maintains a high standard of academic quality, fostering a transparent, impartial, and efficient review process.