Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose and Governing Principles

Contemporary Research on Organization Management and Administration is committed to a rigorous, independent, fair, confidential, constructive, and timely peer-review process. Peer review is used to evaluate the originality, methodological quality, theoretical contribution, analytical integrity, transparency, ethical compliance, and relevance of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

The journal’s peer-review procedures are informed by internationally recognised principles of editorial and publication ethics, particularly the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the COPE guidance on peer review, and relevant provisions of the ICMJE Recommendations on responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process.

Reference to these organisations and their guidance does not, by itself, constitute or imply institutional membership.

2. Peer-Review Model

The journal applies a double-anonymous peer-review model. Under this model:

reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors;
authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities;
reviewer identities are treated as confidential editorial information;
authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying references, file properties, and other identifying information from the anonymised manuscript;
identifying information is maintained separately by the Editorial Office.

The journal cannot guarantee complete anonymity when an author’s identity can reasonably be inferred from the subject matter, cited publications, research setting, data repository, conference version, preprint, or other publicly available information. Nevertheless, editors and reviewers must not attempt to discover an author’s identity.

3. Scope of Peer Review

Research articles, review articles, conceptual papers, policy analyses, comparative studies, case studies, methodological papers, and other substantive scholarly contributions are normally subject to external peer review.

Editorials, corrections, retractions, publisher notices, book reviews, announcements, and invited introductory material may undergo editorial assessment rather than full external peer review. The article type and applicable review procedure should be clearly identified in the published record.

4. Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submission is first examined by the Editorial Office and a responsible editor. Initial assessment does not constitute acceptance and may include consideration of:

conformity with the journal’s aims and scope;
relevance to organization, management, administration, governance, leadership, institutional development, or related fields;
completeness of the submission;
academic structure and clarity;
originality and potential scholarly contribution;
adequacy of the research question and theoretical foundation;
methodological plausibility;
compliance with author guidelines;
ethical approvals and informed consent, where applicable;
disclosure of funding and competing interests;
data availability and research transparency;
authorship and contributor information;
similarity, plagiarism, redundant publication, or text recycling;
language quality sufficient to permit scholarly evaluation;
removal of information that could compromise anonymous review.

A manuscript may be returned for technical correction, referred for editorial revision, sent to external reviewers, transferred to another section, or rejected without external review. A desk rejection may be issued when a submission is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, has fundamental methodological problems, does not meet ethical or reporting requirements, or is not suitable for further evaluation.

5. Selection and Verification of Reviewers

Manuscripts proceeding to external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject, theoretical, regional, or methodological expertise.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

demonstrated expertise relevant to the manuscript;
appropriate publication or professional record;
independence from the authors and their institutions;
absence of financial, professional, personal, ideological, or academic conflicts;
ability to provide an objective and timely assessment;
reliability and previous review performance, where known.

Reviewer identities and contact information may be verified through institutional webpages, publication records, ORCID profiles, recognised scholarly databases, or other reliable sources. Invitations are sent to independently verified addresses whenever possible.

Authors may suggest qualified reviewers or identify individuals whom they believe should not review the manuscript. Such suggestions are advisory only. The editor retains complete authority over reviewer selection and is not required to invite an author-nominated reviewer.

The journal monitors reviewer nominations and review activity for signs of fabricated identities, false email accounts, undisclosed relationships, coordinated reviewing, coercive citation practices, or manipulation. Suspected interference with peer review will be investigated with reference to the COPE guidance on recognising potential peer-review manipulation.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must disclose any circumstance that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality. Relevant conflicts may include:

current or recent institutional affiliation with an author;
recent collaboration, supervision, mentorship, employment, or grant relationships;
direct academic competition;
personal or family relationships;
financial interests;
strong personal, political, professional, or ideological commitments;
involvement in the research or preparation of the manuscript;
prior access to a substantially similar manuscript;
participation in an appeal or dispute concerning the same work.

When uncertain, reviewers should disclose the potential conflict to the editor rather than deciding privately that it is insignificant. The editor will determine whether the reviewer may proceed. Editors and Editorial Board members must similarly recuse themselves from submissions involving their own work, collaborators, students, supervisors, institutions, or other relevant interests.

7. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are privileged and confidential communications. Editors and reviewers must not:

disclose the manuscript or review process to unauthorised persons;
share, copy, distribute, retain, or publicly discuss the manuscript;
use unpublished information, ideas, arguments, methods, or data for personal advantage;
contact authors directly without editorial permission;
delegate the review to another person without prior approval;
upload the manuscript to external systems that do not provide adequate confidentiality and data protection.

Reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are confidential unless disclosure is required by law, necessary for a formal ethics investigation, or authorised by the relevant parties. Confidentiality principles are consistent with the ICMJE recommendations concerning manuscripts and reviewer identities.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript, its figures, tables, data, supplementary files, or identifiable extracts to publicly available generative artificial-intelligence systems or other external tools where confidentiality, data retention, and intellectual-property protection cannot be assured.

AI systems must not replace the reviewer’s independent scholarly judgment. A reviewer remains personally accountable for the accuracy, integrity, fairness, confidentiality, and originality of the submitted report.

If limited AI-assisted functionality is permitted by the journal for language correction or another defined purpose, the reviewer must first obtain editorial permission and disclose the tool and manner of use. The journal follows the confidentiality principles outlined in the ICMJE guidance on AI use by reviewers.

9. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Originality and Contribution

Does the manuscript address a significant research problem?
Is its contribution distinguishable from existing literature?
Does it advance theory, methodology, policy, or professional practice?
Are claims of originality accurate and appropriately supported?

Theoretical and Literature Foundation

Is the literature review current, balanced, and relevant?
Is the theoretical or conceptual framework clearly explained?
Are major competing perspectives acknowledged?
Are sources represented accurately and cited appropriately?

Research Design and Methodology

Is the research question clearly formulated?
Is the selected methodology appropriate?
Are sampling, measurement, data collection, and analysis adequately explained?
Can the research process be understood and, where relevant, replicated?
Are limitations and potential sources of bias addressed?
Are statistical, qualitative, comparative, or mixed-method procedures properly applied?

Results and Interpretation

Are findings presented clearly and consistently?
Are tables, figures, and supplementary materials accurate and necessary?
Do the conclusions follow from the evidence?
Are alternative explanations considered?
Are theoretical and practical implications proportionate to the results?
Does the manuscript avoid unsupported generalisations?

Research Ethics and Integrity

Were relevant ethical approvals and permissions obtained?
Was informed consent secured where required?
Are privacy, confidentiality, and data-protection obligations addressed?
Are funding and competing interests disclosed?
Are there indications of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, or citation manipulation?

Presentation and Reporting

Is the manuscript logically organised?
Are the title, abstract, keywords, tables, figures, and references appropriate?
Is the language sufficiently clear and professional?
Does the manuscript follow applicable reporting guidelines?
Are data, materials, instruments, and code availability statements adequate?

Where applicable, authors and reviewers are encouraged to consult the EQUATOR Network reporting-guideline library and its guidance on peer reviewing research.

10. Reviewer Reports

A reviewer report should be respectful, specific, evidence-based, and constructive. It should normally include:

a concise overall assessment;
major concerns affecting validity, originality, interpretation, or ethical compliance;
minor comments concerning clarity, presentation, references, tables, or figures;
a recommendation to the editor;
confidential comments to the editor, if necessary.

Reviewers must distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions. Personal criticism, insulting language, discriminatory remarks, unsupported allegations, and demands unrelated to the manuscript’s quality are unacceptable.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer’s publications unless those references are genuinely relevant and necessary. Requests designed primarily to increase citations to a reviewer, journal, institution, or associated group are prohibited.

The Editorial Office may edit a reviewer report to remove offensive language, identifying information, unsafe links, or material that violates journal policy. Substantive meaning will not normally be altered without consultation, consistent with COPE guidance on editing peer reviews.

11. Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewers’ reports and its own assessment, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept;
Accept subject to minor revisions;
Major revisions required;
Reject and invite resubmission as a substantially new manuscript;
Reject;
Refer for additional review or specialist assessment.

Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, the final decision. The editor is responsible for evaluating the quality, consistency, relevance, and evidential basis of the reports. A manuscript is not automatically accepted because reviewers recommend acceptance, nor automatically rejected because one reviewer recommends rejection.

When reports conflict substantially, the editor may:

evaluate the disagreement independently;
request clarification from the reviewers;
appoint an additional reviewer;
seek specialist methodological or statistical advice;
issue a decision based on the totality of the evidence.

12. Revision and Re-Review

Authors invited to revise must submit:

a clean revised manuscript;
a marked or tracked-changes version, if requested;
a detailed point-by-point response to every reviewer and editorial comment;
a reasoned explanation where a recommendation has not been followed;
updated declarations, data statements, ethical information, or supplementary files where necessary.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by new reviewers, or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the changes. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

The editor may close a submission if a revision is not returned within the specified period and no extension has been agreed upon.

13. Expected Timeframes

The journal aims to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible while protecting its quality and independence. Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within the period stated in the invitation, commonly between two and four weeks.

Timeframes are targets rather than guarantees. Delays may occur because of reviewer availability, specialist requirements, multiple revision rounds, ethical concerns, verification procedures, or the complexity of the manuscript. Authors will be informed when a substantial delay becomes known.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance, publication, indexing, citation, or completion of peer review by a date requested for graduation, promotion, funding, employment, or institutional reporting.

14. Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts, citation manipulation, or another integrity problem, the concern must be reported confidentially to the editor with supporting information.

Reviewers should not investigate authors independently or contact their institutions without editorial authorisation. The journal may suspend the review while the concern is examined and may request explanations, original data, ethical approvals, contributor statements, or other documentation.

Cases will be handled fairly and proportionately with reference to relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts.

15. Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection or other substantive editorial decision when they believe that:

a significant factual or procedural error occurred;
a reviewer materially misunderstood the manuscript;
relevant evidence was overlooked;
an undisclosed conflict affected the evaluation;
the journal’s stated procedures were not followed.

An appeal must provide a clear, evidence-based response and should not merely express disagreement with the outcome. Appeals based on personal attacks, threats, reputational pressure, or demands for guaranteed publication will not be considered.

The appeal will normally be reviewed by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision. Additional expert advice may be obtained. The decision reached after formal appeal is normally final.

16. Complaints About Peer Review

Concerns regarding delay, reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, procedural irregularities, discrimination, or editorial behaviour should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office.

Complaints must identify the manuscript, describe the concern precisely, and provide relevant evidence. The journal will preserve confidentiality as far as reasonably possible and will distinguish between:

disagreement with scholarly judgment;
an appeal against a decision;
a complaint about procedure or conduct;
an allegation of research or publication misconduct.

17. Editorial Board and Guest-Editor Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, guest editors, employees, or individuals closely associated with the publisher are not exempt from peer review.

Such submissions must be assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The submitting editor or Board member must not select reviewers, access confidential reviewer identities, participate in deliberations, or make the final decision.

Special-issue manuscripts are subject to the same ethical, methodological, and peer-review standards as regular submissions. The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight of special issues and may intervene where independence or quality is at risk.

18. Reviewer Recognition and Records

The journal may provide reviewer certificates or acknowledgements with the reviewer’s consent. Such recognition will not disclose the manuscript reviewed or compromise double-anonymous review.

The Editorial Office maintains appropriate records of reviewer invitations, reports, decisions, conflicts, and correspondence for quality assurance, accountability, and the investigation of concerns. Access is restricted to authorised editorial personnel.

19. Post-Publication Responsibilities

Peer review does not end the journal’s responsibility for the integrity of the scholarly record. Substantive concerns raised after publication will be assessed by the Editorial Office.

Where justified, the journal may publish:

a correction;
an expression of concern;
a retraction;
a replacement notice;
an editorial clarification;
another appropriate update to the published record.

Actions will be proportionate to the evidence and linked transparently to the affected article.

20. Policy Review

This policy may be revised to reflect developments in publication ethics, peer-review practice, technology, data protection, and applicable legal or institutional requirements. The version published on the journal website is the governing version for new submissions.