Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal can feel like navigating uncharted territory, especially for first-time authors. At the Journal of Business Management & Innovation (JBMI), we understand that the journey from manuscript submission to publication involves numerous steps that may seem opaque or intimidating. This guide aims to demystify the peer-review process and provide you with practical insights from our editorial team to help you succeed.
Understanding the Peer-Review Journey
The peer-review process exists to ensure the quality, rigor, and validity of published research. At JBMI, we’ve streamlined our process to ensure manuscripts move efficiently through several distinct stages:
Initial Editorial Screening (2-3 days)
When your manuscript arrives, our editorial team conducts an initial assessment. We evaluate whether your work aligns with JBMI’s scope, meets basic formatting requirements, and demonstrates sufficient scholarly merit to proceed to peer review.
Insider tip from our editors: Approximately 30% of submissions don’t pass this initial screening. The most common reasons? Manuscripts that fall outside our journal’s scope or fail to demonstrate a clear contribution to business management or innovation research. Before submitting, carefully review our aims and scope, and browse recent issues to ensure your work fits.
Peer Review Assignment (3-5 days)
Once your manuscript passes initial screening, we identify and invite appropriate reviewers—typically two to three experts in your research area. Our curated network of responsive reviewers enables rapid assignment.
What we look for in reviewers: Subject matter expertise, recent publication activity in the field, and no conflicts of interest with your work. We maintain a diverse pool of reviewers from both academic and corporate backgrounds, reflecting JBMI’s commitment to bridging theory and practice.
The Review Period (7-10 days)
Reviewers examine your manuscript for originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field. They provide detailed feedback and recommend one of several decisions: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.
Understanding reviewer feedback: Reviewers may seem harsh, but remember they’re invested in improving your work. Even critical reviews often contain valuable insights that strengthen your manuscript. Our editorial team moderates extreme or unhelpful comments before they reach you.
Editorial Decision (1-2 days after reviews received)
Armed with reviewer recommendations, our editors make the final decision. We consider the reviews carefully but also exercise editorial judgment based on the journal’s strategic priorities and quality standards.
Common Decision Types and What They Mean
Accept with Minor Revisions (rare on first submission): Your manuscript is fundamentally sound and requires only small changes—typos, clarifications, or minor additions. Congratulations! This is an excellent outcome.
Major Revisions Required (most common for promising manuscripts): Your work has merit but needs substantial improvements. This might involve additional analysis, restructuring arguments, expanding literature reviews, or strengthening methodology sections. Don’t be discouraged—this is a positive signal that we see publication potential.
Reject and Resubmit: The manuscript requires fundamental changes so extensive that it needs complete re-evaluation through a new round of peer review. This is different from outright rejection and suggests we believe the research could eventually be suitable for JBMI.
Reject: The manuscript isn’t suitable for JBMI, either due to scope mismatch, fundamental methodological flaws, or insufficient contribution to the field.
Practical Tips for Manuscript Preparation
Before You Submit
1. Read our guidelines—thoroughly
It sounds obvious, but improperly formatted manuscripts create unnecessary delays. Pay attention to reference style, word limits, section structure, and figure requirements. JBMI follows specific formatting standards designed to streamline production.
2. Craft a compelling abstract
Your abstract is often the first (and sometimes only) part editors and reviewers read carefully. It should concisely state your research question, methodology, key findings, and implications. Avoid jargon and be specific about your contribution.
3. Clearly articulate your contribution
Don’t make reviewers hunt for your research’s significance. Explicitly state what’s new about your work, how it advances the field, and why it matters to JBMI’s audience of researchers and practitioners. A dedicated “Contribution” or “Implications” section can be highly effective.
4. Ensure methodological transparency
Provide sufficient detail that another researcher could replicate your study. This includes sampling procedures, data collection instruments, analysis techniques, and any limitations. Methodological rigor is non-negotiable at JBMI.
5. Engage deeply with relevant literature
A strong literature review doesn’t just summarize existing research—it positions your work within ongoing scholarly conversations. Identify gaps you’re addressing and explain how your findings contribute to or challenge current understanding.
6. Write for a diverse audience
Remember that JBMI serves both academics and corporate professionals. Avoid excessive jargon, define technical terms, and emphasize practical implications alongside theoretical contributions.
Responding to Reviewer Comments
Receiving reviewer feedback can be emotional, especially if it’s critical. Here’s how to approach revisions constructively:
Take a breath: Read the reviews, then step away for 24-48 hours before responding. This prevents defensive reactions and allows you to approach feedback objectively.
Create a response document: Prepare a point-by-point response to every reviewer comment. For each point, state the comment, explain how you’ve addressed it, and reference specific page numbers or line numbers in your revised manuscript.
Be gracious and professional: Thank reviewers for their time and insights, even when you disagree. If you choose not to implement a suggestion, provide a respectful, evidence-based rationale.
Make changes visible: Use track changes or colour coding so editors can easily see modifications. This demonstrates responsiveness and saves editorial time.
Don’t ignore small comments: Even minor suggestions about wording or formatting deserve acknowledgment in your response letter. Dismissing small points may suggest you haven’t taken the review seriously.
Strengthen, don’t just defend: The best revisions don’t merely address criticisms—they improve the manuscript beyond what reviewers requested. Use feedback as an opportunity to enhance clarity and impact.
Understanding JBMI’s Open Access Commitment
As an open access journal, JBMI ensures your research reaches the widest possible audience without subscription barriers. This model accelerates knowledge dissemination and increases your work’s visibility and citation potential.
What this means for you: Your published article will be freely accessible to researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and students worldwide. We’ve seen JBMI articles downloaded thousands of times within months of publication, contributing to real-world business innovation and policy discussions.
Article processing charges: Like most open access journals, JBMI operates on an author-pays model. We provide transparent information about fees and offer waivers or discounts for authors from low-income countries or those without institutional funding. Don’t let financial concerns prevent you from submitting high-quality research—contact us to discuss your situation.
Timeline Expectations
JBMI is committed to rapid publication without compromising quality. Here’s our streamlined timeline:
- Submission to initial decision: 2-3 weeks
- Revision period (your work): 5-7 days typically requested
- Re-review of revisions: 3-5 days
- Final acceptance to publication: 3-5 days
Total time from submission to publication: Approximately 1 month (4 weeks) for manuscripts requiring one round of minor revisions, which represents the majority of accepted papers.
This accelerated timeline is made possible through our efficient editorial processes, dedicated reviewer network, and streamlined production system.
Red Flags That Lead to Rejection
Our editorial team wants you to succeed. Avoid these common pitfalls:
Lack of originality: Incremental findings that don’t substantially advance the field struggle to meet JBMI’s standards. Ensure your work offers fresh insights, not just confirmatory results.
Poor writing quality: While we don’t expect perfection, manuscripts with pervasive grammatical errors, unclear arguments, or disorganized structure create doubt about research quality. Consider professional editing services if English isn’t your first language.
Inadequate literature review: Failing to engage with recent, relevant research suggests you’re not fully informed about your field. Ensure your references include recent publications (within the last 3-5 years) alongside foundational works.
Methodological concerns: Inappropriate methods, small sample sizes without justification, unclear analysis procedures, or ignoring confounding variables will trigger rejection. Be rigorous and transparent.
Overselling findings: Making claims unsupported by your data damages credibility. Be honest about limitations and avoid overgeneralizing from specific contexts.
Plagiarism or ethics violations: This includes self-plagiarism, data fabrication, lack of informed consent, or undisclosed conflicts of interest. Any ethical concerns result in immediate rejection and potential author sanctions.
Maximizing Your Chances of Acceptance
Start with a strong research question: The best papers address meaningful problems with clear practical or theoretical significance. Ask yourself: “Who cares about this, and why should they?”
Choose appropriate methods: Your methodology should align with your research questions. Mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative approaches are all welcome at JBMI—what matters is that your choice is justified and executed rigorously.
Tell a clear story: Structure your manuscript logically, with each section building toward your conclusions. Readers should easily follow your reasoning from problem identification through findings to implications.
Highlight practical implications: JBMI values research that connects theory to practice. Include a dedicated section discussing how your findings inform managerial decision-making, organizational strategy, or innovation processes.
Consider interdisciplinary connections: Business management and innovation intersect with psychology, economics, sociology, technology studies, and more. Papers that bridge disciplines often generate significant interest.
Final Encouragement
Publishing your first peer-reviewed article is a significant achievement. The process demands patience, resilience, and willingness to accept constructive criticism. Remember that even experienced researchers face rejection and criticism—it’s an inherent part of scholarly publishing.
At JBMI, we’re committed to supporting authors throughout this journey. Our editorial team is here to answer questions, provide guidance, and help you navigate any challenges that arise. We believe in the open exchange of knowledge and are excited to share your contributions with the global business management and innovation community.
Whether you’re a PhD student embarking on your first publication, a corporate professional translating practical insights into scholarly work, or an established researcher exploring new territory, we welcome your submissions. The future of business and innovation depends on the rigorous, creative, and impactful research that journals like JBMI facilitate.
Ready to submit? Visit our online submission system and join the conversation shaping tomorrow’s business landscape.
Have questions about the submission process? Contact our editorial team at inquiry@jbmij.org. We’re here to help you succeed.
