Double-Blind Peer-Review Policies

At Macaw International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and rigor. Our double-blind peer-review process is a critical component of our commitment to ensuring the quality, impartiality, and confidentiality of the research we publish.

1. What is Double-Blind Peer Review?

In a double-blind peer-review process, both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This ensures that the manuscript is evaluated purely on its academic merit, free from any potential bias based on the authors' identity, affiliation, or reputation.

2. How the Double-Blind Process Works

2.1 Submission

  • When submitting a manuscript, authors must ensure that any identifying information (such as names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and references to previous work) is removed from the main document.
  • The title page, which includes author information, should be uploaded separately during the submission process.

2.2 Reviewer Selection

  • The editorial team assigns the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of study.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research background, and ability to provide an objective and constructive critique.

2.3 Confidentiality

  • Reviewers will not have access to any information that could reveal the identity of the authors.
  • Similarly, authors will not know the identities of the reviewers who evaluate their manuscript.
  • This mutual anonymity helps to eliminate any potential conflicts of interest and promotes an unbiased review process.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

3.1 Objective Evaluation

  • Reviewers are expected to provide a fair and objective assessment of the manuscript’s scientific rigor, originality, clarity, and relevance to the field of managerial studies.
  • Personal criticism or biased judgments are not tolerated in the review process.

3.2 Confidentiality and Ethics

  • Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document and should not share, discuss, or use the content for any purposes other than the review itself.
  • If a reviewer identifies any potential conflict of interest or feels unable to provide an unbiased review, they must inform the editorial office immediately.

4. Author Responsibilities

4.1 Ensuring Anonymity

  • Authors must take all necessary steps to ensure that their manuscript is prepared for double-blind review. This includes removing any self-referencing text or other information that could reveal their identity.
  • Failure to adequately anonymize the manuscript may result in delays or rejection of the submission.

4.2 Responding to Reviewer Feedback

  • Authors are encouraged to address all reviewer comments in a constructive manner. Revised manuscripts should include a point-by-point response to each comment, indicating how the manuscript has been amended.

5. Editorial Decision

  • The final decision on the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers' recommendations. The decision could be one of the following: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  • Authors will be informed of the decision, along with the reviewers' comments, to help guide any necessary revisions.

6. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors who believe that their manuscript was unfairly rejected may appeal the decision by contacting the editorial office with a detailed explanation.
  • Appeals are reviewed carefully, but the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

7. Commitment to Quality and Integrity

Macaw International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research is dedicated to upholding the integrity of the academic review process. Our double-blind peer-review policy is designed to ensure that every manuscript is evaluated solely on the basis of its academic contribution, free from any undue influence.