IJRM Review Process


Once a manuscript is submitted to IJRM via our online Elsevier Editorial System (EES), it is checked for whether the submission guidelines are satisfied (i.e., page limit, language, formatting of tables and figures, font size, line spacing, no identifying notes or marks anywhere in the paper, etc); otherwise the paper is returned to the author(s). The authors also have to complete a submission form. Hence, for speedy processing, authors are advised to make sure that their paper satisfies the submission guidelines published in this and Elsevier’s website.

If a paper satisfies the basic submission guidelines, it is assigned a reference number within the IJRM database, and turned over to the Editor. At this point, the Editor can desk reject a paper if he believes that the probability of it being accepted is too low and thus it makes no sense to make the author wait for the result of a complete review process. Fitness with IJRM’s readership and editorial policy and novel contribution to the field are some of the criteria employed.

If the Editor is not fully convinced that the paper ought to be desk rejected, an Area Editor (who has expertise on the paper’s subject area) will then be requested to evaluate the manuscript and recommend it to be either desk rejected or to be accepted into the review process.

When the review cycle for a paper begins, a review team, composed of one Area Editor and two Reviewers, are assigned by the Editor on the paper. The author will remain anonymous to both the AE and the Reviewers and vice versa. In addition, the identity of the AE will not be revealed to the 2 Reviewers until the paper has been accepted or rejected for publication.
 
*** 

The Area Editor primarily recommends a submission and, in case of a revise-and-resubmit, suggests priorities for the author to make the paper publishable. More specifically, the AE –
  • when requested by the Editor, makes recommendations whether or not to desk reject a manuscript;

  • leads the review team to make a recommendation;

  • writes a brief evaluative report to the authors, providing polite constructive feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. This report is based on the evaluation of the two Reviewers and the AE’s own reading of the manuscript;

  • suggests solutions in cases of conflict between Reviewers’ evaluations;

  • makes recommendations to the Editor regarding final decision on the submission.

 ***

The Reviewers primary role is to evaluate submitted papers in more detail, and in case of revise-and-resubmit, make suggestions – if possible - on how the paper can be improved. In line with this task, the reviewer:

  • writes an evaluation report which gives the author expert, unbiased, polite and constructive evaluation of the manuscript;

  • evaluates the manuscript for more importantly: conceptual and methodological rigor, readability, clarity of objectives, significance of topic and contribution, potential input (if revised as suggested), novelty of contribution (both conceptual and empirical), length-contribution ratio.

 ***

The Editor has the following responsibilities and role within the editorial review process (apart from that of managing the journal):

  • determines whether a submission fits the readership and editorial policy of IJRM;

  • assigns the appropriate Area Editor and Reviewers to evaluate submissions;

  • makes final decision on submissions based on the recommendation of the AE and the Reviewers’ reports;

  • directly communicates with the AE and Reviewers and the authors;

  • resolves conflicts in the evaluation process;

  • schedules accepted papers for publication;

  • ensures that the workloads of AEs and Reviewers are balanced.
*** 
 
Depending on the extent to which the manuscript satisfies the above mentioned criteria, the usual outcomes of the review process are:
 
  • rejection;

  • revise and resubmit (or conditional acceptance) with either minor or major revisions;

  • acceptance for publication.
 
The paper, reports and recommendation of the Review Team are then sent to the editor, who will then make a decision to accept or reject based on these and his own careful reading of the manuscript. The final decision will then be communicated to the author.
 
***
 
In cases of revise-and-resubmit, the Editor communicates to the author the conditions upon which the paper can be made publishable. The reviewers' comments and the AE report are also sent to the author with instructions to address the issues they raise, and to resubmit the revised paper as soon as possible.

Once the revised paper is resubmitted, it is sent to the same Reviewers and AE, who will again evaluate the paper based on the conditions set out by the AE and editor gave and the reports of the reviewer.
 
***
 
IJRM’s review process has only two (2) rounds; that is, there will only be at most one (1) revision cycle.


A second-round revision will only be encouraged if and only if the research is deemed to have a substantial upside potential and that the needed additional revisions are relatively minor.

Once a paper has been accepted for publication, the author is then notified and might be asked to make some minor changes to make the manuscript publishable. The author must have copyright to the submitted manuscript otherwise it cannot be published in IJRM. All accepted papers are sent to a technical editor for final proofreading.


The copy with suggested corrections will be sent to the author for approval.
The Elsevier Log-in Department will contact the author when the proofs are ready.