Peer Review Policy

Understanding Our Peer Review Approach
AOMS Publisher and the Management Analytics Letters (MAL) utilise an advanced online manuscript management system for efficient and transparent peer review service. MAL aims to provide constructive feedback within 4 to 6 weeks, facilitating faster decision-making and publication.

MAL has a dedicated editorial team that includes the Editor-in-Chief, associate editors, and reviewers. They carefully manage the journal process by following strict ethical and transparent practices. Their goal is to highlight new research and support progress in all academic fields.

Peer Review Process

Every submission goes through a careful double-blind review, where the author and reviewer don’t know each other’s names. We give priority to papers that are creative, meaningful, and offer fresh ideas related to the journal’s focus.

Peer Review Workflow:

  • Initial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor evaluates the manuscript’s fit, originality, and adherence to journal standards.
  • Expert Peer Review: Qualified reviewers (minimum of two) with subject-matter expertise are assigned.
  • Editorial Decision: Authors receive decisions with reviewer feedback. If revisions are requested, authors must respond in detail.
  • Revisions and Re-Review: Depending on the nature of the changes, the revised manuscript may be reassessed by the original or new reviewers.
  • Final Acceptance: Once all feedback is addressed, the manuscript proceeds to the acceptance and proof stage, where only minor editions are allowed.
  • Publication: Our production team ensures quality control. Formatting and figure adjustments are finalized per journal standards.

Review Integrity & Editorial Oversight

  • Expert Reviewers: Each manuscript is reviewed for methodological rigour and data reliability.
  • Editorial Authority: Editors make sure each manuscript meets the journal’s quality standards. If needed, the Editor-in-Chief can change decisions to protect fairness and follow ethical guidelines.
  • Transparency: Reviewer/editor names may be published, after taking their consent, with the issue for accountability.
  • Timeliness: Our platform offers real-time updates to all parties. The average review time is 4 to 6 weeks (as per the reviewer availability).
  • Integrity Focused: Our Research Integrity Team investigates any peer review misconduct (e.g., citation manipulation, false identities).

Collaborative Platform
Our system supports transparent communication between authors, reviewers, and editors. Our dedicated peer review team offers support throughout the process.

Roles and Responsibilities

  • Authors: Must submit original, ethical, and relevant manuscripts. Timely and professional responses to feedback are essential. Disrespectful or non-responsive behavior may lead to rejection.
  • Reviewers: Evaluate manuscripts for scientific soundness, accuracy, and value. They assess methodology, conclusions, and data quality.
  • Editors: Manage the review process, ensure fairness, and uphold journal policies. Editors can request further reviews, revisions, or override decisions to preserve integrity.

Support Teams

  • Research Integrity Team: Handles ethical concerns, misconduct investigations, and policy compliance.
  • Editorial Operations Team: Ensures efficient workflow and continuous process optimization.

Manuscript Quality Standards
Manuscripts must meet high standards in:

  • Research Foundation: A clearly defined research question and hypothesis.
  • Methodology: Transparent, rigorous, and reproducible study design.
  • Presentation: Clear, concise, and professionally structured writing with proper visuals.
  • Compliance: Adherence to editorial, ethical, and institutional standards.
  • Referencing: Proper citation of relevant, balanced, and recent literature.

Acceptance Criteria
To be accepted, a manuscript must:

  • Pose a valid research question rooted in theory and address a relevant gap.
  • Use appropriate methods that ensure scientific rigour and reproducibility.
  • Present findings with clarity and coherence, supported by quality figures and tables.
  • Be compliant with all journal policies.
  • Be grounded in relevant literature, avoiding biased citation practices.

Rejection Criteria
Submissions may be rejected for:

  • Invalid foundation (e.g., lack of research questions or pseudoscientific topic).
  • Methodological flaws that undermine results.
  • Policy non-compliance, such as plagiarism or ethical breaches.
  • Presentation quality issues, including unclear writing or substandard visuals.
  • Ethical violations, such as a lack of approval for human/animal studies.
  • Data/authorship issues, including falsification or authorship disputes.
  • Inadequate referencing or misleading conclusions.

Conclusion
MAL ensures a rigorous, fair, and professional peer review system that emphasizes quality, transparency, and academic contribution. For further information, please refer to:

Or contact us at editor.mal@aomspublisher.com.