Peer Review Process
SCHEMA: Studies of Contemporary Approaches and Management applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to maintain the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication. Under this review model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial team before being sent for external peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope, academic standards, originality requirements, ethical standards, or submission guidelines may be rejected during the initial editorial screening without external review.
Each submitted manuscript is checked for completeness, compliance with the journal's author guidelines, manuscript structure, required declarations, file preparation, and other administrative requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial evaluation.
The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor evaluates the manuscript for suitability with the journal's focus and scope, originality, scholarly relevance, methodological adequacy, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, and overall academic quality. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may receive a desk rejection without proceeding to external peer review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation may be screened for textual similarity and other potential research integrity concerns. The editorial team evaluates similarity reports contextually and does not make publication decisions solely on the basis of a numerical similarity percentage.
Manuscripts considered suitable for review are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewer selection is based on academic competence, research expertise, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
SCHEMA uses a double-blind review model. Reviewers assess the manuscript independently, while author and reviewer identities remain concealed from each other. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the originality, theoretical foundation, research design, methodological rigor, analysis, interpretation, contribution, presentation, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal.
Following evaluation, reviewers submit constructive comments and provide a recommendation to the editor. Reviewer recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision.
The handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports, the quality of the manuscript, and its compliance with the journal's editorial standards before issuing a decision. Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or conduct further editorial assessment before reaching a decision.
When revision is requested, authors are expected to address reviewer and editor comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Authors should provide a scholarly justification when a recommendation has not been incorporated.
Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the editor and may be returned to the original reviewers when further expert assessment is required. Multiple rounds of revision may be requested when necessary to ensure that the manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly and editorial standards.
The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout, metadata preparation, and publication. Acceptance is based on scholarly merit, successful completion of the peer-review process, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical requirements.
Editorial Decision Categories
- Accept Submission – the manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to final editorial and production checks.
- Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially alter the study.
- Major Revision – substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication.
- Resubmit for Review – extensive revision is required and the revised manuscript may undergo another full round of peer review.
- Decline Submission – the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or cannot be made suitable through reasonable revision.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful assessments. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage and must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could compromise the independence of their assessment.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and contribution of the manuscript without discrimination based on the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal background, or other characteristics unrelated to academic merit.
Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other conflict of interest. Such manuscripts will be assigned to another qualified editor to ensure an independent editorial process.
