Peer review of manuscripts submitted to Management and Business is a mandatory component of the editorial process and is conducted to ensure an appropriate scientific, methodological, theoretical and ethical standard of the published materials.

The principal objectives of peer review are to:

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scientific quality, relevance, originality, reliability and practical value of the manuscript, as well as its compliance with the journal’s scope. The authors’ origin, sex, age, citizenship, ethnicity, religious or political beliefs, place of employment, academic status or financial circumstances must not influence the outcome of editorial consideration.

The journal adheres to the principles of editorial independence, impartiality, confidentiality, accountability and transparency, as well as the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

The journal operates a double-anonymised peer review procedure:

Before a manuscript is forwarded to reviewers, the technical editor removes from the text, file properties and accompanying materials any information that may directly identify the authors.

The Editorial Office takes reasonable measures to preserve the anonymity of both parties. However, it cannot fully guarantee that authorship will not be inferred from the content of the manuscript, self-citations, previous publications, preprints, open datasets or conference materials.

A reviewer must not attempt to identify the author. If the author’s identity becomes known to the reviewer and this may affect the reviewer’s impartiality, the reviewer must immediately inform the Editorial Office and withdraw from the review process.

 

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial assessment. This assessment is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief or a designated Academic Editor who has no conflict of interest in relation to the material concerned.

During the initial assessment, the following are examined:

Text-similarity checking is an auxiliary tool and does not replace editorial analysis. A decision must not be based solely on an automatically generated similarity percentage.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it clearly falls outside the journal’s scope, fails to meet the required scientific standard, substantially violates the journal’s formatting requirements or contains clear indications of a breach of publication ethics. The author is informed of the principal reasons for such a decision.

 

A manuscript that has successfully passed the initial assessment is forwarded to at least two independent external reviewers.

Reviewers may be Ukrainian or international scholars who:

An Academic Editor or member of the Editorial Board may coordinate the peer review process but may not replace an independent external reviewer.

A reviewer must not be employed by the same institution as the author, be in a direct reporting relationship with the author, or act as the author’s academic supervisor, consultant, student, close collaborator or participant in a joint project.

The Editorial Office also takes account of recent co-authorship or other close academic collaboration. As a general rule, a reviewer is not appointed if, during the preceding three years, they have had joint publications, grants, research projects or other systematic professional links with the author.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals whom they request not to be involved in the evaluation. Such suggestions are not binding on the Editorial Office. The Editorial Office independently verifies the identity, qualifications, publication record, affiliation and independence of each reviewer.

 

When submitting a manuscript, all authors must disclose any financial and non-financial interests that may be connected with the research, its results or their interpretation.

Authors must disclose:

Where no conflict of interest exists, an appropriate declaration must be included in the manuscript.

Failure to disclose a material conflict of interest may result in the suspension of the editorial process, rejection of the manuscript, a new independent assessment, correction of the published article or other measures proportionate to the seriousness of the breach.

 

The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Academic Editor, member of the Editorial Board or Guest Editor must not conduct the initial assessment, select reviewers, access review reports or participate in the editorial decision if they:

In such circumstances, the editor must recuse themselves. The manuscript is assigned to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, another independent member of the Editorial Board or a specially appointed external editor.

A submission by the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the Editorial Board, an employee of the publisher or another person associated with the journal must not be subject to a simplified procedure or preferential treatment. Such a manuscript undergoes full independent external peer review, and the interested person is not given access to information concerning the reviewers or the decision-making process.

The same standards apply to manuscripts submitted to special issues. Where a Guest Editor has a conflict of interest, the manuscript concerned is assigned to an editor who is not involved in preparing the special issue.

 

Upon receiving an invitation to review, a reviewer must assess not only their competence and ability to meet the specified deadline but also the existence of any potential conflict of interest.

A reviewer must decline the invitation or seek clarification from the Editorial Office if:

If a conflict of interest is identified after the review has commenced, the reviewer must discontinue their work and inform the Editorial Office. The Editorial Office determines whether any review report already prepared may continue to be used.

If an undisclosed conflict of interest involving a reviewer is identified before publication, the review report will normally be excluded from the editorial process, and the manuscript will be assigned to another independent expert.

If an undisclosed conflict is identified after publication, the Editorial Office assesses whether it may have materially influenced the decision. Where necessary, a new independent assessment of the article is arranged, and a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern or other appropriate statement is published.

Systematic concealment of conflicts of interest may constitute grounds for terminating cooperation with the reviewer. In serious cases, the Editorial Office may contact the reviewer’s institution in accordance with COPE procedures.

 

Reviewers must:

A reviewer must not independently involve colleagues, doctoral students or other persons in preparing the review report. Where the involvement of another specialist is necessary, this must be approved in advance by the Editorial Office, and the specialist’s name and any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor.

 

During peer review, the following are assessed:

 

Following their assessment, reviewers select one of the following recommendations:

The recommendation must be accompanied by a reasoned written report. A recommendation for revision or rejection must not be limited to general statements without an explanation of the scientific, methodological or ethical grounds.

A reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final decision is made by the editor responsible for the manuscript, provided that the editor has no conflict of interest in relation to it.

 

Differences between the recommendations of two reviewers do not automatically result in the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

Where the review reports differ substantially, the editor:

A decision is not made by mechanically counting positive and negative recommendations. The evidential basis of the reviewers’ comments, the scientific quality of the manuscript and the possibility of correcting the identified shortcomings are decisive.

Where a review contains factual errors, unjustified demands, discriminatory judgements, coercive self-citation requests or indications of bias, the Editorial Office may disregard the review and appoint another expert.

 

Authors are provided with anonymised review reports and editorial recommendations.

When submitting a revised version, the authors must provide a separate response in which they clearly indicate:

A manuscript that has undergone major revision will normally be returned to the same reviewers. If they are unavailable, have a conflict of interest or their further involvement is considered inappropriate, the Editorial Office appoints other independent experts.

Submission of a revised version does not guarantee acceptance. Where significant shortcomings have not been corrected, or the revisions have created new problems, the manuscript may be returned for further revision or rejected.

 

A manuscript is a confidential document. Reviewers and editors must not upload its full text, unpublished data, figures, tables or personal information to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems unless the system’s confidentiality policy provides appropriate protection for the materials and such use has been authorised by the Editorial Office.

Artificial intelligence must not replace the professional expert judgement of a reviewer or editor. The person submitting a review report or making a decision remains fully responsible for its accuracy, reasoning, originality and ethical integrity.

Any use of an artificial intelligence tool authorised by the Editorial Office for language editing or technical assistance must be disclosed to the Editorial Office. The unauthorised transfer of confidential material to a third party is treated as a potential breach of editorial ethics.

 

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorised editor who has no conflict of interest in relation to the manuscript.

The decision takes account of:

An editor may disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation. However, such a decision must have a reasoned scientific or ethical basis and must be recorded in the journal’s internal editorial documentation.

The journal’s funding, the payment or non-payment of an author fee, or any advertising, institutional, commercial or personal interests must not influence the editorial decision.

 

The recommended period for preparing a review report is up to two weeks from the date on which the reviewer accepts the invitation.

The overall period of expert assessment is normally between two and four weeks. The average time to the first editorial decision is between four and eight weeks.

These timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, the availability of suitably qualified experts, the need for additional peer review or the need to investigate ethical issues.

In the event of a substantial delay, the Editorial Office informs the author of the reasons. The author has the right to withdraw the manuscript provided that a final editorial decision has not yet been made.

 

The Editorial Office retains review reports, conflict-of-interest declarations, editorial decisions and related correspondence for at least three years following publication of the article or the final decision concerning a rejected manuscript.

Access to such materials is restricted to authorised persons. Reviewers’ personal data are not disclosed to authors or third parties except where required by law, as part of a formal investigation, or with the reviewer’s written consent.