Peer Review Process

JMET EDITORIAL POLICY

Peer Review Process

Journal of Management Entrepreneurship and Tourism (JMET)

 

The Journal of Management Entrepreneurship and Tourism (JMET) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, confidential, and transparent peer-review process.

All research manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process, in which author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another.

Peer review evaluates scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, clarity, relevance, and contribution. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the designated Editor.

Peer Review at a Glance
Peer Review Model Double-Blind Peer Review
External Reviewers Normally at least two independent expert reviewers
Initial Screening Administrative and editorial screening
Final Decision Responsible Editor
Acceptance Guarantee None
Editorial Independence Independent of publication fees and commercial considerations

I. Review Model and Editorial Screening

Submission check, scope assessment, originality, and reviewer assignment

1. Peer Review Model

JMET applies a Double-Blind Peer Review model.

Under this model:

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers;
  • Reviewer identities are treated as confidential;
  • Author-identifying information is removed from the review manuscript as far as reasonably possible.
The double-blind process is intended to reduce inappropriate influence arising from author identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, seniority, reputation, or other irrelevant considerations.

2. Initial Submission Check

After submission through the journal's online system, the Editorial Office conducts an initial administrative and technical screening.

The submission may be checked for:

  • Completeness of submission files;
  • Compliance with JMET Author Guidelines;
  • Completeness and accuracy of metadata;
  • Appropriate manuscript structure;
  • English-language quality;
  • Required declarations;
  • Copyright and permissions;
  • Ethical documentation where applicable;
  • Similarity and originality;
  • Compliance with the journal's Aims and Scope.

Administrative screening does not constitute scientific acceptance of the manuscript.

3. Editorial Screening

Following the initial submission check, the manuscript is evaluated by an Editor.

The Editor considers whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the JMET Aims and Scope;
  • Addresses a relevant scholarly problem;
  • Demonstrates sufficient originality;
  • Provides a meaningful academic contribution;
  • Uses an appropriate and sufficiently rigorous methodology;
  • Meets basic ethical and research-integrity requirements;
  • Is written clearly enough to permit scholarly evaluation;
  • Meets minimum scientific and editorial standards.
A manuscript may be declined without external peer review when it clearly falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, contains fundamental methodological problems, fails ethical requirements, or does not meet minimum editorial standards.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise;
  • Relevant research and publication experience;
  • Methodological expertise where appropriate;
  • Independence from the authors and manuscript;
  • Absence of relevant conflicts of interest;
  • Ability to provide rigorous and constructive assessment.

Additional reviewers may be invited where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, specialist expertise is required, or an ethical or technical issue requires further assessment.

II. Reviewer Independence and Confidentiality

Conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and responsible use of AI

5. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should normally decline an invitation where relationships involving authors, institutions, funding organizations, projects, or subject matter could reasonably compromise impartial judgment.

Reviewers must not use privileged information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, academic, financial, or competitive advantage.

6. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to JMET are treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals;
  • Distribute or reproduce unpublished material;
  • Use unpublished information for personal benefit;
  • Discuss manuscript contents outside the authorized review process;
  • Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript.

Review reports and editorial correspondence are also treated confidentially. This obligation continues after the review has been completed.

7. Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts contain confidential and potentially unpublished intellectual property. Reviewers therefore must comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, substantial manuscript content, confidential supplementary information, or peer-review reports to publicly accessible generative AI systems where doing so may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or data protection.

Scholarly assessment must reflect the reviewer's own expert judgment. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their reports.

View JMET AI Policy

III. Review Criteria

Scholarly contribution, theory, methodology, results, ethics, and presentation
8. Criteria Used by Reviewers

Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript address an important or relevant problem?
  • Is the contribution sufficiently original?
  • Does it advance knowledge within JMET's disciplinary scope?

Theoretical Foundation

  • Is the study adequately grounded in relevant literature?
  • Is the research gap clearly established?
  • Are theoretical arguments coherent?
  • Are research questions or hypotheses appropriately developed?

Methodological Rigor

  • Is the research design appropriate?
  • Are sample, data sources, instruments, and procedures sufficiently described?
  • Are analytical methods appropriate?
  • Are validity, reliability, robustness, or other relevant criteria addressed?

Results

  • Are findings presented accurately and clearly?
  • Do tables and figures appropriately support the analysis?
  • Are interpretations justified by the evidence?

Discussion

  • Are findings interpreted rather than merely repeated?
  • Are findings connected appropriately to previous research and theory?
  • Are alternative explanations considered where relevant?

Contribution and Implications

  • Does the manuscript provide meaningful theoretical, managerial, entrepreneurial, tourism, policy, or practical implications?
  • Are claims proportional to the evidence?

Research Ethics and Integrity

  • Are relevant ethical requirements addressed?
  • Are there signs of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, manipulation, duplicate publication, or citation manipulation?

Presentation Quality

  • Is the manuscript logically structured?
  • Is the abstract informative?
  • Is the language sufficiently clear?
  • Are references appropriate, accurate, and relevant?

Aims and Scope

  • Is the manuscript substantively aligned with JMET's stated Aims and Scope?

IV. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

9. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Editorial decisions are not made mechanically by counting reviewer votes.

10. Editorial Decisions

Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication subject to remaining editorial or production requirements.

Minor Revision
Limited changes are required that do not substantially alter methodology, results, or contribution.

Major Revision
Substantial revision is required before reconsideration. A major revision does not constitute acceptance.

Reject
The manuscript is unsuitable for publication due to scientific, methodological, ethical, scope-related, or contribution-related limitations.

11. Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

  1. A revised manuscript;
  2. A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers and editors;
  3. A clear explanation of changes made;
  4. A scholarly justification for recommendations not adopted.

Responses should be professional, specific, and evidence-based. A request for revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.

12. Differing Reviewer Recommendations

Where reviewer assessments differ substantially, the Editor may:

  • Evaluate the scholarly arguments in each review;
  • Request clarification from reviewers;
  • Invite an additional independent reviewer;
  • Request further revision;
  • Make a decision based on the totality of scholarly evidence.
The purpose is not simply to count recommendations but to reach a defensible scholarly decision.

V. Editorial Integrity and Independence

13. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must maintain independence and impartiality. An Editor must not manage a manuscript where a significant conflict exists.

Potential conflicts include manuscripts authored by:

  • The Editor;
  • Close collaborators;
  • Immediate colleagues where independence cannot reasonably be maintained;
  • Family members;
  • Individuals with significant financial, professional, or personal relationships.

Editorial Board membership does not guarantee acceptance or preferential treatment.

14. Publication Ethics During Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must remain alert to:

  • Plagiarism;
  • Duplicate or redundant publication;
  • Fabricated or falsified data;
  • Improper image manipulation;
  • Citation manipulation;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Unethical research practices;
  • Authorship irregularities;
  • Manipulation of peer review.

15. Citation Requests by Reviewers

Reviewer requests for additional references must be based on genuine scholarly relevance.

Reviewers must not require:

  • Unrelated citations;
  • Excessive citations to their own work;
  • Unnecessary citations to JMET;
  • Citations intended primarily to increase metrics.

16. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on academic and ethical considerations.

Decisions must not be influenced by:

  • Article processing charges;
  • Authors' institutional prestige;
  • Nationality;
  • Personal relationships;
  • Commercial considerations;
  • Advertising;
  • Sponsorship;
  • Political or organizational pressure.
Payment of an Article Processing Charge does not guarantee peer review, acceptance, preferential treatment, or accelerated editorial decisions.

17. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or demonstrable problem in the review process may submit an appeal under JMET's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal should:

  • Clearly identify the manuscript;
  • Explain the specific basis of the appeal;
  • Provide a reasoned scholarly argument;
  • Avoid personal attacks on editors or reviewers.

VI. Review Timeline and Post-Acceptance Process

18. Indicative Review Timeline
Initial / First Decision Approximately 1–2 weeks
External Peer Review Approximately 2–10 weeks
Submission to Acceptance Approximately 10–14 weeks, depending on revisions and review requirements
Acceptance to Publication Approximately 14–16 weeks, depending on production scheduling
Important: These periods are indicative targets, not guarantees. Actual processing time may vary according to reviewer availability, revision complexity, methodological requirements, ethical investigations, editorial workload, and production needs. Quality and integrity take precedence over speed.

19. Post-Acceptance Process

Following final acceptance, manuscripts may undergo:

  • Copyediting;
  • Language and consistency checks;
  • Reference checking;
  • Metadata verification;
  • Layout and typesetting;
  • Author proofreading;
  • DOI registration;
  • Final publication preparation.

The final published article constitutes the journal's Version of Record.

VII. Editorial Responsibility and Review Principles

20. Role of the Editor

The Editor is responsible for safeguarding quality, fairness, integrity, confidentiality, and independence throughout the peer-review process.

The final publication decision remains an editorial responsibility and must be based on scholarly considerations.

The Editor's role is not merely to count reviewer recommendations, but to assess the strength and relevance of scholarly arguments presented by reviewers and authors.
21. Principles of JMET Peer Review

Independence
Review and editorial decisions should be protected from inappropriate influence.

Confidentiality
Unpublished manuscripts and review information must remain confidential.

Fairness
Manuscripts should be evaluated according to scholarly merit and relevant journal criteria.

Expertise
Reviewers should possess appropriate expertise for the assigned manuscript.

Transparency
JMET publicly describes its peer-review model and principal editorial procedures.

Integrity
Research and publication misconduct are taken seriously.

Constructive Evaluation
Reviewer reports should assist authors and editors in evaluating and improving scholarly work.

Editorial Accountability
Final decisions are made by responsible Editors who remain accountable for the integrity of the editorial process.

Peer Review Summary

Journal Journal of Management Entrepreneurship and Tourism (JMET)
Publisher Sumber Belajar Sejahtera
Peer Review Model Double-Blind Peer Review
External Reviewers Normally at least two independent expert reviewers
Initial Screening Editorial and administrative screening
Similarity / Integrity Screening Applied where appropriate
Final Decision Responsible Editor
Acceptance Guarantee None
Appeal Mechanism Available under the Complaints and Appeals Policy
Editorial Independence Independent of publication fees and commercial considerations
Review Timeline Indicative only; quality and integrity take precedence over speed
JMET PEER REVIEW COMMITMENT

JMET is committed to a fair, independent, confidential, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process that prioritizes scholarly quality, research integrity, and responsible editorial decision-making.