Azman University International Journal
of Management and Social Sciences

1. Review Model

AUIJMSS uses double-blind peer review: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors, throughout the process. Authors are asked to remove self-identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifiable funding statements) from the manuscript file itself before submission; this information is held separately by the editorial office.

2. The Review Process, Step by Step

1. Editorial screening

   On receipt, the editor-in-chief (or a handling editor) checks the manuscript for fit with the journal's aims and scope, basic formatting compliance, and completeness, and runs a similarity/plagiarism check. A manuscript that is clearly out of scope, substantially incomplete, or fails the originality check may be desk-rejected at this stage without external review.

2. Reviewer assignment

   Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent, subject-matter reviewers, drawn from the editorial board, international advisory board, or qualified external referees with no conflict of interest.

3. Independent review

   Each reviewer independently assesses the manuscript against the criteria in section 4 and returns written comments together with a recommendation to the handling editor.

4. Editorial decision

   The handling editor weighs the reviewers' recommendations — which are advisory, not binding — and reaches a decision (see section 6). Where reviewer recommendations diverge substantially, the editor may seek an additional reviewer opinion before deciding.

5. Revision (where requested)

   Authors revising a manuscript submit a revised version together with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts are, wherever feasible, returned to the original reviewers for a further opinion.

6. Final decision & production

   Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, typesetting in the journal's house style, and scheduling into a forthcoming issue.

3. Reviewer Selection & Eligibility

Reviewers are selected for demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's subject area, evidenced by their own publication record, qualifications, or professional experience. A reviewer with a direct personal, professional, financial, or institutional connection to the authors that could compromise objectivity is not assigned to that manuscript, and any reviewer who identifies such a connection after assignment is required to disclose it to the handling editor and withdraw.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate each manuscript on:

• Originality — a genuine, non-duplicative contribution to the literature;
• Methodological rigour — soundness of design, data, and analysis (or, for conceptual/review papers, of the argument and synthesis);
• Clarity — coherent structure and academic writing quality;
• Contribution — relevance and significance to management, social science, or policy audiences; and
• Ethical compliance — proper citation, disclosure, and, where applicable, evidence of research ethics approval and informed consent.

5. Timeline

AUIJMSS aims to provide authors with an initial editorial decision (accept, revise, or reject) within 4–6 weeks of a manuscript successfully passing editorial screening. Where this is not achievable — for example while awaiting a reviewer response — the editorial office will, on request, update the corresponding author on the manuscript's status. Authors are typically given 3–4 weeks to return a revised manuscript, extendable on reasonable request.

6. Decision Categories

7. Confidentiality & Conflicts of Interest

Manuscripts under review, and the content of reviews themselves, are treated as confidential by everyone involved in the process and are not shared outside the editorial workflow. Reviewers may not use knowledge of an unpublished manuscript for their own advantage, and must disclose to the editor any conflict of interest arising during review (see also the journal's Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement).

8. Appeals

An author who believes a rejection decision was based on a misunderstanding of the manuscript, an error in the review process, or a reviewer conflict of interest may appeal in writing to auijmss@gmail.com within 30 days of the decision, providing a point-by-point response to the reasons given. Appeals are considered by the editor-in-chief together with an editor not involved in the original decision, and may result in the original decision being upheld, or the manuscript being sent for an independent further review. The outcome of an appeal is final.