The peer review process at IJM is guided by best practices defined by COPE and is critical to maintaining the journal’s scholarly standards.
- Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Subject matter expertise
- Research and publication background
- Absence of conflicts of interest
Reviewers may be members of the editorial board or external scholars.
- Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Conduct a fair, unbiased, and timely review
- Evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, ethical compliance, and relevance
- Provide detailed, constructive, and respectful feedback
- Refrain from personal criticism or language that could be perceived as discriminatory or dismissive
- Highlight ethical concerns such as plagiarism or data fabrication
- Confidentiality
- Manuscripts and associated content must be treated as confidential documents
- Reviewers must not share or use manuscript content for personal or professional gain
- Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any personal, professional, or financial conflicts that may affect objectivity. If identified, they must decline the review assignment.
- Review Timeline
- Reviewers are expected to submit their reviews within 2–4 weeks
- Extensions may be granted on request
- Delays must be communicated to the editorial office in advance
- Recognition
IJM acknowledges reviewer contributions through certificates, annual recognition lists, and consideration for future editorial roles.