Peer Review & Publication Ethics

The Journal of Strategy and Performance Management (JSPM) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity, editorial independence, and ethical publishing practices. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated through a rigorous and fair peer review process to ensure scholarly quality, analytical rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Peer Review Process

Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine their suitability for the journal. This screening evaluates alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, originality, clarity of contribution, and compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are subjected to a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.

Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject-matter expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic or professional background and their familiarity with the manuscript’s methodological or applied domain.

Evaluation Criteria

Research-Oriented Submissions

Research articles are evaluated based on:

• Clarity of research objectives or questions

• Engagement with relevant literature

• Theoretical contribution

• Appropriateness and rigor of methodology

• Quality of analysis and interpretation

• Contribution to theory and/or practice

Practice- and Policy-Oriented Submissions

Practice-based and policy-oriented manuscripts are evaluated with due consideration of their applied nature and are assessed on:

• Analytical rigor and conceptual grounding

• Clarity of context and problem definition

• Soundness of the approach, framework, or intervention

• Evidence-based reflection on outcomes

• Transferability of insights to other organizational or institutional contexts

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ reports and the editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may reach one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Accept with minor revisions

• Revise and resubmit

• Reject

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for all publication decisions.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Conduct reviews objectively, fairly, and constructively

• Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts

• Declare any potential conflicts of interest

• Provide timely and well-reasoned evaluations

Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting to JSPM are expected to:

• Submit original work that is not under consideration elsewhere

• Properly acknowledge all sources and prior work

• Ensure accuracy of data, citations, and analysis

• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest

Publication Ethics

JSPM adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and best practices.

Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

All submissions may be screened for plagiarism. Manuscripts involving plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research misconduct will be rejected.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the evaluation, review, or publication of a manuscript.

Corrections and Retractions

If significant errors or ethical concerns are identified after publication, the journal will take appropriate action, which may include the publication of corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, as necessary.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions at JSPM are made independently and are based solely on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, and adherence to ethical standards. Editorial decisions are not influenced by commercial, institutional, or personal interests.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request to the editorial office (info.jspm@firstpromethean.com). Complaints related to the peer review or publication process will be handled in a fair, transparent, and timely manner.