Peer Review Process

Frontier Management Science (FMS) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts. In the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

The peer review process is designed to ensure that every manuscript is evaluated fairly, objectively, and based on scholarly merit.

1. Initial Submission Check

After submission through the online journal system, the editorial office will conduct an initial administrative check to ensure that the manuscript is complete and follows the journal requirements.

This stage includes checking:

  • Completeness of manuscript files
  • Author information and metadata
  • Abstract and keywords
  • Reference format
  • Tables and figures
  • Required statements, such as conflict of interest, funding, author contributions, and data availability
  • Compliance with the journal template and author guidelines

Manuscripts that are incomplete or do not follow the basic submission requirements may be returned to the author for correction before further evaluation.

2. Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor will conduct an initial editorial screening to assess whether the manuscript is suitable for Frontier Management Science (FMS).

The screening considers:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Originality and contribution
  • Clarity of research problem
  • Quality of academic writing
  • Appropriateness of research method
  • Ethical compliance
  • Potential contribution to theory, practice, or policy

Manuscripts that are outside the journal scope, lack sufficient academic contribution, contain serious methodological weaknesses, or do not meet ethical standards may be rejected at this stage without external review.

3. Similarity and Plagiarism Check

All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening will be checked for similarity using plagiarism detection tools.

Manuscripts may be rejected or returned for revision if they contain:

  • High similarity index
  • Plagiarism
  • Improper citation
  • Duplicate publication
  • Text recycling without proper acknowledgment
  • Fabrication or falsification concerns

The recommended similarity level is generally below 20%, excluding references, direct quotations, and standard methodological terms.

4. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening and similarity check will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic, method, and field of study.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic expertise
  • Research background
  • Publication record
  • Methodological competence
  • Absence of conflict of interest
  • Availability to complete the review within the required timeframe

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and evaluate the manuscript objectively.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

FMS uses a double-blind peer review system. Authors do not know the identities of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of authors.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Relevance to the journal scope
  • Clarity of research objectives
  • Strength of theoretical foundation
  • Appropriateness of methodology
  • Quality of data analysis
  • Validity of findings
  • Depth of discussion
  • Contribution to knowledge
  • Practical, managerial, or policy implications
  • Quality of writing and organization
  • Accuracy and relevance of references
  • Ethical compliance

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept Submission
    The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or very minor changes.
  2. Revisions Required
    The manuscript requires minor revisions before acceptance.
  3. Resubmit for Review
    The manuscript requires major revision and must be reviewed again after resubmission.
  4. Resubmit Elsewhere
    The manuscript is not suitable for FMS but may be appropriate for another journal.
  5. Decline Submission
    The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to serious weaknesses in originality, methodology, structure, ethics, or contribution.
  6. See Comments
    The reviewer provides specific comments without selecting a fixed recommendation.

7. Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor based on reviewer comments, reviewer recommendations, manuscript quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal scope.

The possible editorial decisions are:

  • Accepted
  • Accepted with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Resubmit for review
  • Rejected

The editorial decision will be communicated to the corresponding author through the online journal system.

8. Revision Process

If revision is required, authors must revise the manuscript carefully based on reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should submit:

  • Revised manuscript
  • Response to reviewers
  • Explanation of changes made
  • Highlighted or tracked-changes version, if requested

The response to reviewers should address each comment clearly and respectfully. If authors disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, they should provide a clear academic justification.

Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the deadline given by the editorial office. Authors who require additional time may contact the editorial office before the deadline.

9. Second Review

Manuscripts requiring major revision may be sent back to the original reviewers or new reviewers for further evaluation.

The second review will assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the comments and improved the manuscript.

Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the editor without additional external review.

10. Final Decision

After the revision and evaluation process, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor will make the final decision.

A manuscript will be accepted only if it meets the journal’s standards for:

  • Originality
  • Academic quality
  • Methodological rigor
  • Ethical compliance
  • Relevance to the journal scope
  • Contribution to theory, practice, or policy

The final decision of the editorial board is final.

11. Copyediting, Proofreading, and Publication

Accepted manuscripts will proceed to the production stage, including:

  • Copyediting
  • Layout editing
  • Proofreading
  • DOI registration
  • Metadata preparation
  • Online publication

Authors may be asked to review the final proof before publication. Authors are responsible for checking the accuracy of names, affiliations, tables, figures, references, and final article content.

12. Review Timeline

FMS aims to complete the editorial and peer review process within a reasonable timeframe.

The estimated review timeline is as follows:

Stage Estimated Time
Initial submission check 3–7 days
Editorial screening 1–2 weeks
Similarity check 3–7 days
Peer review 3–6 weeks
Author revision 1–4 weeks
Final editorial decision 1–2 weeks
Copyediting and publication 1–3 weeks

The actual timeline may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision complexity, and editorial workload.

13. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to FMS are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than those involved in the editorial and review process.

Reviewers must not use unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts for personal research or professional advantage.

14. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest before handling or reviewing a manuscript.

A conflict of interest may include:

  • Personal relationship with the author
  • Institutional affiliation with the author
  • Financial interest related to the research
  • Academic competition
  • Collaboration with the author
  • Any condition that may affect objective judgment

If a conflict of interest exists, the editor or reviewer must withdraw from the review process.

15. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback
  • Evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit
  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Declare conflicts of interest
  • Avoid personal criticism
  • Inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or ethical concerns
  • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe

16. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that a decision was made based on misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural irregularity.

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office with a clear explanation and supporting evidence. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may consult additional editors or reviewers if necessary.

The appeal process does not guarantee a change in editorial decision.

17. Editorial Independence

All editorial decisions are based on academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and ethical compliance. Decisions are not influenced by the author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, or ability to pay the Article Processing Charge.

Payment of the APC does not influence the peer review process or guarantee publication.