Peer Review Policy

Frontiers in Strategic Management (FSM)

eISSN: 2978-3682

1. Introduction & Overview

Frontiers in Strategic Management (FSM) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, research integrity, and ethical publishing. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a fair, objective, rigorous, and confidential peer review process designed to evaluate its originality, scientific merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

FSM follows a Double-Blind Peer Review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, theoretical contribution, and empirical rigor of the manuscript and are made completely independently of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, funding source, or Article Processing Charge (APC) payment.

2. Purpose of Peer Review

The primary objective of peer review is to ensure that only scientifically sound, ethically conducted, and high-impact strategic management research is published. The review process helps improve manuscript quality through constructive expert feedback while maintaining the integrity and credibility of the permanent scholarly record.

The peer review process aims to:

Evaluate the originality, novelty, and strategic significance of submitted research.
Assess methodological accuracy, theoretical frameworks, and validity of research findings.
Verify compliance with research ethics, data transparency, and publication standards.
Provide constructive, actionable recommendations for improving manuscript quality.
Support fair, transparent, and unbiased editorial decision-making.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review System

FSM employs a strict Double-Blind Peer Review system. Under this model:

Reviewers do not know the identity, affiliations, or geographical origin of the authors.
Authors do not know the identity of the assigned reviewers.

This approach eliminates potential unconscious bias and promotes impartial evaluation based solely on the intellectual merit and quality of the manuscript. All reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process, declare any potential conflicts of interest, and provide clear, evidence-based recommendations.

4. Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission through the journal portal, each manuscript undergoes an initial desk evaluation by the Editorial Office before being sent for external peer review.

The initial screening includes assessment of:

Scope Alignment: Relevance to strategic management, corporate governance, organizational leadership, and competitive strategy.
Completeness: Presence of all required files (title page, main manuscript, figures, tables, and disclosures).
Formatting Compliance: Adherence to FSM Author Guidelines and APA 7th Edition reference formatting.
Ethics & Plagiarism: Automated similarity checks via Turnitin / iThenticate to ensure original content (<15% similarity threshold).

Manuscripts that do not satisfy basic editorial criteria or fall outside the journal's scope may be returned for technical revision or desk-rejected prior to external peer review.

Submit Article Now

5. Reviewer Selection Criteria

After successful desk screening, the manuscript is assigned to independent reviewers with appropriate academic qualifications, subject matter expertise, and strong research records in strategic management and related fields.

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

Domain expertise and publication history in strategy, governance, leadership, or business policy.
Formal academic qualifications and scholarly reputation.
Absence of any direct or indirect conflict of interest with the authors.
Ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely peer evaluations.
Commitment to maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process.

In all standard cases, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively using internationally accepted scholarly standards. During peer review, reviewers assess:

Originality & Significance: Novelty of research questions and contribution to strategic management theory or practice.
Theoretical Framework: Soundness of conceptual models and literature grounding.
Methodology: Rigor of research design, sample selection, data collection, and analytical techniques.
Results & Discussion: Accuracy of empirical results, statistical testing, and interpretation of findings.
Managerial Implications: Practical relevance for strategic decision-makers, executives, or policymakers.
Structure & Readability: Clarity of expression, organization, visual data quality, and grammar.
References: Accuracy, recency, and proper formatting of citations with active DOIs.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a vital role in safeguarding scientific rigor. Invited reviewers are expected to:

Conduct fair, objective, professional, and evidence-based evaluations.
Submit detailed review reports within the stipulated timeframe.
Treat all manuscript files as strictly confidential documents.
Alert the handling editor to any un-cited prior work, suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical breaches.
Recuse themselves immediately if a competing interest or conflict arises.

8. Confidentiality Policy

All manuscripts submitted to FSM are treated as strictly confidential privileged documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or utilize un-published manuscript details or data for personal research or commercial purposes. Identities of authors and reviewers remain protected under the Double-Blind system throughout the lifecycle of the evaluation.

9. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, collaborative, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their evaluation of a manuscript. Reviewers with a conflict of interest are required to decline review invitations immediately.

10. Editorial Decision Process

Following the receipt of reviewer reports, the Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief evaluate the reports and render one of five formal editorial determinations:

Accept without Revision: The manuscript meets all publication standards and is accepted for publication with minor editorial polish.
Minor Revision: Authors are requested to address minor textual, visual, or formatting comments prior to final acceptance.
Major Revision: Substantial structural, theoretical, or empirical revisions are required. The revised manuscript is subject to mandatory re-evaluation by the original reviewers.
Reject with Opportunity for Resubmission: The manuscript requires extensive reworking and new data collection before it can be considered as a new submission.
Reject: The manuscript fails to meet the journal’s scientific, methodological, or ethical standards.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority and responsibility for all publication decisions.

11. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

A revised manuscript version with all changes highlighted or tracked.
A detailed Point-by-Point Response document explaining how each comment from reviewers and editors was addressed.

Revised manuscripts are re-assessed either by the handling editor or sent back to original reviewers based on the extent of changes made.

12. Editorial Independence & APC Separation

Editorial decisions are completely autonomous and insulated from commercial considerations, publisher influences, or Article Processing Charge (APC) payments.

Payment of the APC is requested only after formal peer review completion and official editorial acceptance.
APC payment does not influence peer review outcomes or guarantee acceptance.
Acceptance cannot be purchased under any circumstances.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe an editorial decision was based on a factual misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office within 14 days of the decision. Appeals must include evidence-based rebuttals addressing specific reviewer concerns. Appeals are reviewed independently by the Editor-in-Chief.

14. Typical Review Timeline

Stage	Estimated Timeline
Initial Editorial Screening	2–5 Days
Peer Review Process	2–4 Weeks
Author Revision Period	1–3 Weeks
Final Editorial Decision	Within 1 Week post-revision

Note: Timelines serve as general operational targets and may vary based on manuscript complexity, empirical depth, and reviewer availability.

15. Policy Review & Updates

This Peer Review Policy is reviewed annually by the Editorial Board to maintain full alignment with COPE, DOAJ, Scopus, and global Open Science publishing standards.

16. Contact Information

For questions regarding the peer review process, manuscript status, or editorial governance, please contact the Editorial Office:

Editorial Email: editor@irjernet.com
Article Submission Link: Submit Manuscript via Online Form