Peer Review Policy

JBAMS applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, academic rigor, and editorial integrity. All manuscripts are evaluated based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, without discrimination based on institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, or professional background.

Review Model

JBAMS follows Double-Blind Peer Review, where:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers; and
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript file (no names, affiliations, or self-identifying statements). Any manuscript that compromises anonymity may be returned for correction prior to review.

Editorial Screening (Pre-Review)

All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine:

  • Scope alignment and completeness
  • Compliance with author guidelines and journal policies
  • Baseline academic quality and language readiness
  • Presence of required ethical statements (as applicable)
  • Suitability for external peer review

Manuscripts may be desk-rejected when they are out of scope, substantially underdeveloped, methodologically weak, or inconsistent with ethical publishing standards.

Similarity and Ethical Checks

JBAMS conducts similarity screening and editorial checks to identify potential concerns including plagiarism, duplicate submission/publication, manipulated citations, and other forms of misconduct. Manuscripts with serious ethical violations may be rejected at any stage.

Reviewer Assignment and Independence

Eligible manuscripts are evaluated by at least two (2) independent reviewers selected based on subject expertise, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and decline review when impartiality cannot be assured.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts using the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge and practice
  • Theoretical and conceptual grounding
  • Methodological rigor, validity, and transparency
  • Quality and integrity of data/analysis (where applicable)
  • Clarity of presentation and academic writing standards
  • Relevance and fit to JBAMS scope
  • Appropriate use of literature and references
  • Ethical compliance and responsible reporting

Editorial Decisions

After peer review, the editorial decision may be:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor, guided by reviewer reports, editorial judgment, and journal policies.

Revision and Re-Review

Authors receiving revision decisions must submit:

  1. a revised manuscript; and
  2. a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.

Major revisions may be returned to reviewers for verification. The journal may reject submissions if revisions are incomplete, unsupported, or do not address core academic or ethical issues.

Timeliness and Processing Timeline

JBAMS aims to maintain high-quality review while ensuring efficiency. Typical targets are:

  • Editorial screening: 2–4 weeks
  • External peer review: 4–6 weeks
  • Author revision period: 1–3 weeks (depending on decision)

Average total time from submission to publication is approximately 20–25 weeks. Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision depth, author responsiveness, and editorial quality controls.

Confidentiality and Integrity

All manuscripts and review communications are confidential. JBAMS prohibits unethical review behavior including reviewer identity manipulation, false reviewer accounts, breach of confidentiality, and citation coercion. Suspected violations are investigated and may result in rejection, correction, retraction, reviewer removal, or author restrictions.

Editorial Independence (APC Neutrality)

Peer review and editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, ethical compliance, and scope relevance. APC payment (if applicable) does not influence editorial decisions and is only applicable after acceptance, following journal policy.

Appeals, Complaints, and Post-Publication Actions

Authors may submit a formal appeal when they believe a decision involved a serious procedural error. JBAMS may issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when necessary to safeguard the scholarly record.

For peer review concerns, contact: jbams@grasp-society.com