Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Business Ethics (ETHICS) undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of published articles. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

The review process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Submissions must comply with the journal’s author guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical standards.

2. Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor conducts an initial assessment to evaluate:

  • The manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
  • Originality and academic contribution;
  • Compliance with ethical and publication standards;
  • Overall quality of writing and presentation.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

3. Similarity Check

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software to ensure the originality of the work. Manuscripts with unacceptable levels of similarity or evidence of plagiarism will be rejected or returned to the authors for clarification.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and significance of the research;
  • Theoretical and conceptual contribution;
  • Methodological rigor and validity;
  • Clarity of analysis and interpretation;
  • Relevance to business ethics and related disciplines;
  • Quality of presentation and references.

The identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

5. Review Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission
  • Minor Revisions Required
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject Submission

If reviewer opinions differ significantly, the editor may appoint an additional reviewer to provide further assessment.

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response explaining how reviewer comments have been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

7. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering the reviewers’ comments, authors’ revisions, and the overall quality of the manuscript.

8. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, proofreading, layout editing, and final author approval before publication.

9. Publication

Articles are published online immediately after completing the production process and are assigned to the appropriate journal issue.

Review Timeline

The journal strives to complete the review process efficiently. The average timeline is as follows:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review process: 4–8 weeks
  • Revision by authors: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision: 1–2 weeks after revision submission

The total review and publication process may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required.

Ethical Review Standards

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, objectivity, and professionalism throughout the review process. They must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit. Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to adhere to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics.