Proses Peer Review (Double Blind)

GIMER: Global Insights in Management and Economic Research follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and objectivity of the research published in the journal. The goal of this process is to provide authors with constructive feedback from experts in their field, while maintaining impartiality and confidentiality for both authors and reviewers.

Overview of the Peer Review Process

  1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

    • Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to ensure that it aligns with the scope and focus of the journal. The editorial team checks for formatting issues, plagiarism, and overall quality of the manuscript.

    • Manuscripts that do not meet basic submission criteria or fall outside the scope of the journal may be rejected at this stage.

  2. Double-Blind Peer Review

    • After passing the initial screening, the manuscript is assigned to two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.

    • Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process (i.e., the double-blind review). The authors' identities are hidden from the reviewers, and the reviewers' identities are concealed from the authors.

    • This process minimizes bias and promotes impartial evaluations of the manuscript.

  3. Reviewers' Evaluation

    • Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

      • Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript provide new insights, findings, or contributions to the field of management and economics?

      • Methodological Rigor: Are the research methods robust, and are they clearly explained and justified?

      • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-written, organized, and easy to understand? Are the arguments clearly presented?

      • Relevance to the Field: Does the manuscript address timely and relevant issues in management, economics, governance, or sustainability?

      • Ethical Standards: Are ethical standards followed in the research process (e.g., obtaining informed consent for human research, ensuring data integrity)?

  4. Reviewers’ Feedback

    • After completing their evaluation, the reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations to the editorial team. These recommendations typically include:

      • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revisions.

      • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes or clarifications before it can be accepted.

      • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes or additional work before it can be considered for publication.

      • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

  5. Editorial Decision

    • Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor-in-chief makes a final decision on the manuscript:

      • Accepted: If the manuscript meets the required standards, it is accepted for publication.

      • Revised: If revisions are necessary, the author is asked to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript for further review.

      • Rejected: If the manuscript does not meet the standards of the journal, it is rejected. In this case, the authors will receive constructive feedback to help them improve their work.

  6. Revisions and Resubmission

    • If revisions are requested, authors are given a specified period to submit the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript will typically undergo another round of review, either by the same reviewers or new ones, depending on the scope of the changes.

  7. Final Decision and Publication

    • Once the manuscript is accepted, it is prepared for publication. This includes final copyediting, formatting, and the addition of appropriate metadata to ensure the manuscript’s visibility in search engines and databases.

    • Accepted manuscripts are published online in open access format, ensuring immediate availability to a global audience.

Benefits of the Double-Blind Review Process

  • Impartiality: By keeping the identities of both authors and reviewers anonymous, the double-blind process ensures that the review is based solely on the manuscript’s merit, without bias related to the authors' identities or affiliations.

  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed and unbiased feedback, which helps authors improve their work and ensures that only the highest-quality research is published.

  • Transparency: Both authors and reviewers are assured of a fair and transparent process, as their identities are kept confidential, and the decision-making process is based on merit and objective evaluation.

This Peer Review Process section outlines the journal’s commitment to maintaining high standards in manuscript evaluation through a double-blind peer review system. It ensures that the review process is fair, transparent, and constructive, which is essential for the academic and professional integrity of the journal.