Peer Review Policy
Archives of Business Research · Policies
Peer Review Policy
How ABR conducts peer review, and what authors and reviewers can expect.
Peer review is central to the integrity of Archives of Business Research. It helps editors reach sound decisions and helps authors improve their work.
Type of peer review
ABR operates a single-blind peer-review process: reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. This long-established model in business and management research supports candid, dispassionate assessment.
Process
| • | Every submission first undergoes an editorial suitability and originality check, including screening with plagiarism-detection software. |
| • | Manuscripts that pass are assigned to a handling editor and sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. |
| • | Reviewers assess originality, significance, theoretical grounding, methodological rigour, validity of conclusions, clarity, and ethical compliance, and recommend a decision. |
| • | The handling editor weighs the reviews and recommends a decision to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. A recommendation is advisory; the editor is not bound by it. |
| • | Authors receive the reviewers’ comments with the decision. Where revisions are requested, authors must respond point by point; revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers. |
Timelines
The journal aims to complete an initial review within approximately 4–8 weeks of assignment, though times vary with reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Authors may contact the Editorial Office for a status update.
Selecting and managing reviewers
Reviewers are selected for their expertise and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers must decline if they have a competing interest (e.g., recent collaboration, professional rivalry, or financial interest) or cannot review objectively or confidentially. Suggested reviewers proposed by authors may be considered but are not necessarily used; editors may also exclude named non-preferred reviewers at their discretion.
Reviewer responsibilities
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential, must not use unpublished material for personal advantage, must provide constructive, evidence-based, and respectful feedback, and must alert the editor to any suspected ethical concern, including plagiarism, redundant publication, or undisclosed conflicts.
Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to produce their reports or upload manuscripts to AI platforms, as this breaches confidentiality (see the Generative AI Policy).
Appeals
Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal in line with the Complaints & Appeals policy.
