Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Design, Management and Sciences follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published research. The journal adheres to international standards of scholarly publishing and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

1. Type of Peer Review

JDMS uses a Double-Blind Peer Review system:

  • Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.

This ensures fairness, impartiality, and objectivity throughout the review process.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission:

  • The editorial team checks the manuscript for scope, completeness, plagiarism, ethical compliance, and basic quality standards.

  • Manuscripts not meeting minimum criteria may be desk rejected or returned for revision before peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise

  • Research experience

  • Publication record

  • Absence of conflict of interest

The journal maintains a diverse pool of national and international reviewers.

4. Review Process

Stage 1: Assignment

The editor assigns the manuscript to two independent reviewers.

Stage 2: Review Duration

Reviewers are given 2–4 weeks to complete their evaluations.

Stage 3: Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and significance

  • Methodological soundness

  • Clarity of objectives

  • Quality of analysis and results

  • Contribution to the field

  • Ethical compliance

  • Quality of references and structure

Stage 4: Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers can recommend one of the following:

  1. Accept

  2. Minor Revision

  3. Major Revision

  4. Resubmit for Review

  5. Reject

5. Revision Process

  • Authors are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments.

  • Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation.

  • The editor makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of the revision.

6. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor makes the final decision to:

  • Accept the manuscript

  • Reject the manuscript

  • Request additional revisions

This decision is made after thoroughly reviewing all reports and author responses.

7. Conflict of Interest Policy

Reviewers and editors must declare any conflicts of interest, including:

  • Personal relationships with authors

  • Co-authorship

  • Financial or academic conflicts

Manuscripts received from editorial board members are handled independently to ensure transparency.

8. Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents.

  • Reviewers are not allowed to share, cite, or distribute manuscript contents until publication.

9. Ethical Guidelines

JDMS follows COPE guidelines for:

  • Handling disputes between authors and reviewers

  • Managing reviewer misconduct

  • Responding to ethical concerns or plagiarism

Any unethical behavior may result in rejection, retraction, or disciplinary action.

10. Reviewer Recognition

JDMS values reviewer contributions. Reviewers may:

  • Receive certificates of appreciation

  • Be listed (optional) on the journal’s annual reviewer acknowledgment page

Confidentiality will still be maintained.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing:

  • A detailed justification

  • Evidence supporting their appeal

Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial member or advisory committee.