Peer Review Policy

1. Peer Review Process

NUML International Journal of Business & Management (NIJBM) follows a multi-stage, double-blind peer-review process beginning with a detailed and comprehensive editorial desk review and followed by independent local and international peer review. The process is designed to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts published by the journal.

NIJBM obtains independent expert advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers who are not members of the journal's Editorial Team for the purpose of manuscript review. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the double-blind review process.

2. Initial Editorial Screening (Detailed Desk Review)

All submitted manuscripts undergo a detailed, comprehensive desk review by the Editor, Managing Editor, Sub Editors, or other designated members of the Editorial Team. This assessment takes place before a manuscript is sent to local or international reviewers.

The Editorial Team evaluates the manuscript for alignment with the aims and scope of NIJBM, originality and academic contribution, theoretical and managerial significance, clarity of the research problem, objectives, questions and/or hypotheses, where applicable, appropriateness and rigor of the research design and methodology, quality, relevance, and currency of the literature review, structure, organization, academic writing, tables, figures, and presentation, ethical considerations and research-integrity requirements, plagiarism/similarity and AI-detection screening; and overall readiness and suitability for external peer review.

Where substantial deficiencies are identified, the Editorial Team may request preliminary corrections or revisions before external review. Manuscripts outside the journal's scope or that do not meet basic academic, ethical, methodological, or publication requirements may be rejected at the desk-review stage without being sent to external reviewers.

3. Double-Blind Review Model

NIJBM follows a double-blind peer-review model. Authors are not identified to reviewers, and reviewers are not identified to authors. Manuscripts sent for review should therefore be anonymized to the extent practicable, including removal of author names, affiliations, and other identifying information.

The double-blind arrangement is intended to support an impartial assessment based on the manuscript's scholarly content rather than the authors' identities or institutional affiliations.

 4. Local Peer Review (Pakistan-Based Reviewer)

Manuscripts that successfully pass the detailed desk review are sent for local peer review by an independent expert based in Pakistan. The local reviewer is selected based on academic qualifications, subject expertise, research background, methodological competence, publication experience, and familiarity with the manuscript's topic.

The local reviewer conducts a detailed evaluation of the research problem, theoretical foundation, literature review, methodology, data and analysis, interpretation of findings, originality, academic contribution, practical or managerial implications, presentation, and overall scholarly quality.

5. International Peer Review (Reviewer Based Outside Pakistan)

Following the local review, the manuscript is sent for an independent international review by a qualified expert based outside Pakistan. The international reviewer is selected according to relevant academic expertise, research background, methodological competence, and familiarity with the subject area.

The international reviewer independently evaluates originality, theoretical and empirical rigor, methodological soundness, validity, relevance, quality of evidence, academic contribution, and potential theoretical and managerial significance.

6. Reviewer Evaluation and Recommendations

Reviewers are requested to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments. Depending on the study, reviewers may consider:

·         originality and novelty;

·         clarity and significance of the research problem;

·         theoretical or conceptual foundation;

·         quality and currency of literature;

·         methodological appropriateness and rigor;

·         quality of data, analysis, and interpretation;

·         consistency among objectives, methods, results, and conclusions;

·         validity and significance of findings;

·         theoretical and managerial/practical implications;

·         quality of presentation, tables, figures, and references; and

·         ethical and research-integrity considerations.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the final publication decision rests with the Editor/Editorial Team.

7. Acknowledgement of Sources and Similarity Concerns

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited. If an observation, derivation, argument, method, or finding appears to have been previously reported, reviewers should draw the matter to the Editor's attention and, where possible, provide the relevant citation.

Reviewers should also inform the Editor of any substantial similarity, overlap, or possible duplication with another published or known work. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editor for appropriate assessment.

8. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential and must not share, discuss, or use them for the benefit of third parties without authorization from the Editorial Team.

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest, including relevant personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, or competitive relationships. Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

9. Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally requested to accept or decline an invitation within two weeks. After accepting, reviewers are typically asked to submit their review within 2 weeks. Reminders may be issued to support timely completion.

Review timelines may vary because of reviewer availability, subject specialization, manuscript complexity, the need to identify replacement reviewers, or the need for further review.

10. Revision and Second-Round Review

Reviewers' suggestions, observations, and recommendations are communicated to authors through the Editorial Team. Authors may be required to revise the manuscript and provide a clear response to the reviewers' comments.

If a reviewer requests or recommends an examination of the revised manuscript, NIJBM may send it back to the same reviewer for a second round of review. Additional review rounds may be conducted where necessary.

Where reviewers recommend publication subject to minor changes, the Editorial Team verifies that the required changes, together with necessary editorial corrections, have been adequately addressed before publication.

11. Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editorial Team after considering the local and international reviewers' reports, authors' responses and revisions, the desk-review assessment, and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript.

Possible decisions include acceptance, revision, or rejection. The Editorial Team may request further revisions, clarification, additional review, or other appropriate checks where necessary. Reviewer recommendations are carefully considered but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.