Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. By accepting an invitation to review with MSD journal, reviewers agree to act in accordance with generally accepted publication ethics and best practices (including the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE). MSD journal supports and follows these guidelines as well.

Promptness

The target timeframe for MSD journal to receive review reports is 21 days after the acceptance date. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse him/herself from the review process. In the event of delays, authors will be informed of the reason for the delay and given the opportunity to withdraw their manuscript if they wish.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission when they:

• Have a recent publication or current submission with any author
• Share or recently shared an affiliation with any author
• Collaborate or recently collaborated with any author
• Have a close personal connection to any author
• Have a financial interest in the subject of the work
• Feel unable to be objective

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor.

Model of peer review and how the peer review process is managed

All research articles published in Management of Sustainable Development journal undergo double blind peer review by anonymous reviewers in addition to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is not made visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to (decision-making) editor. Papers will only be sent to review if the Editor-in-Chief determines that the paper meets the appropriate quality and relevance requirements.

All research articles are peer-reviewed by at least two appropriately qualified specialists who are not related to the authors or affiliated with the same institution. The reviews will not be posted with articles.

The authors have the option to suggest a reviewer or request the exclusion of a reviewer. Reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Our policy is that reviewers should not be assigned to a paper if:

• The reviewer is based at the same institution as any of the co-authors
• The reviewer is based at the funding body of the paper.

Associate Editors provide administrative support that enables MSD journal to retain the integrity of peer review while providing authors and reviewers with rapid turnaround and optimal efficiency. Decisions will be made as soon as possible, and the MSD journal will notify authors of the reviewers’ remarks within two months.

The acceptance criteria for all papers are the relevance to our readership, the quality of the research, the significance of its contribution to the literature, the originality of analysis, and the clarity of presentation as judged by the Editor-in-Chief, considering but not bound by the advice of referees and associate editors. Final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who reserves the right to refuse any material for publication.

Editors of Management of Sustainable Development journal will decide promptly whether to accept, reject, or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews. The result of the reviewing process will be:

• paper accepted
• paper accepted under condition(s): minor/major changes – the editorial board will re-review manuscript;
• paper rejected.

Where contributions are judged as acceptable for publication, the editor and the publisher reserve the right to modify typescripts to eliminate ambiguity and repetition and improve communication between author and reader.