Peer Review Policy and Process

Jurnal Bisnis Inovatif dan Digital applies an Open Peer Review process to enhance transparency and trust in scholarly publishing. This model aims to improve transparency, accountability, and the overall quality of the peer-review process, thereby benefiting authors, reviewers, and the wider academic community.

Open Peer Review Principles

1. Transparent Reviewer Identity

The reviewers' identities are disclosed to the authors, promoting accountability and constructive feedback.

2. Publicly Accessible Reviews

Review reports are made available to the public alongside published articles, allowing readers to see the peer-review process and understand the strengths and weaknesses identified by the reviewers.

3. Interactive Review

Authors and reviewers can engage in open dialogue throughout the review process, fostering collaboration and improving the quality of the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Acknowledgments

Reviewers have the option to sign their reviews and receive recognition for their contributions to the peer review process.

5. Ethical Standards

All participants are expected to adhere to the ethical guidelines, ensuring that the review process is conducted fairly, respectfully, and free from bias.

Stages of the Review Process

1

Delivery and Technical Inspection

After a manuscript is submitted, it undergoes a technical review to ensure compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements and ethical guidelines.

2

Preliminary Editorial Review

The editorial team conducts an initial review to assess whether the manuscript fits within the journal’s scope.

3

Assignment to the Editor

If deemed appropriate, the manuscript is assigned to an editor who will oversee the peer review process.

4

Selection of Reviewers

The editor identifies and contacts reviewers who are experts in the relevant field to evaluate the manuscript.

5

Review Process

Reviewers provide in-depth feedback and recommendations regarding the quality, validity, and contribution of the manuscript to the field.

6

Author Revisions

Based on reviewer feedback, authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts. This process may involve several rounds of revisions and re-evaluation.

7

Final Decision

The editor makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the author’s revisions. Possible outcomes are:

  • Accepted as is: The journal will publish the manuscript in its original form.
  • Accepted with Minor Revisions: The journal will publish the manuscript and ask the author to make minor revisions within a specified timeframe.
  • Accepted with Major Revisions: The journal will publish the manuscript provided the author makes the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editor within the specified timeframe.
  • Resubmit (conditional rejection): The journal is willing to reconsider the manuscript in another decision round after the author makes major revisions.
  • Rejected (definitive rejection): The journal will not publish the manuscript or reconsider it even if the author makes major revisions.
8

Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the publication stage, where they will undergo copyediting and formatting before being published in the journal

Plagiarism checks on manuscripts submitted to this journal are conducted with the help of

Turnitin Application.