Review Process

  1. Home
  2. Review Process

Review Process

Each paper is reviewed by the editor and, if it is judged suitable for this publication, it is then sent to two independent referees for double-blind peer review. Based on their recommendation, as well as consultation between relevant Editorial Board members the editor then decides whether the paper should be accepted as is, revised or rejected.

Tasks of Editors

  • Decision for publication
  • Objectivity
  • Confidentiality
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
  • Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations.

Choosing Peer Reviewers and Their Duties

Peer reviewers of Journal of Digital Management Studies are chosen between experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles. They are selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All reviewers are informed of Journal of Digital Management Studies’ expectations. They are expected to fill the evaluation form and prepare a separate report if necessary.

Any person who has a conflict of interest in the subject of the article cannot be a reviewer for that article. Reviewers should contact the editorial office to declare any potential conflicts of interest in advance of refereeing an article (e.g. being a co-worker or collaborator with one of the authors, or being in a position which precludes giving an objective opinion of the work, those working for a company whose product was tested, its competitors, those with special political or ideological agendas).

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review are as follows:

  • The reviewer should have identified and commented on the major strengths and weaknesses of the study design and methodology
  • The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
  • The reviewer should comment on the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
  • The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
  • The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
  • The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional
  • The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.
  • The reviewers are expected to point out relevant work that has not been cited, and use citations to explain where elements of the work have been previously reported. They should also note any substantial similarity between the manuscript and any paper published in or submitted to another journal.
  • We request that reviewers do not contact authors directly. In most cases two reviewers will be consulted, but the opinion of these reviewers may not reflect the Co-Editor’s final decision on an article. Receiving partial advice from one referee can give authors a misleading impression of the peer review process.


In the review process, information and ideas obtained as a referee is kept confidential and not used for competitive advantage. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and should be kept confidential.

  • The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied by the reviewers. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor.
  • Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.
  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and inform the editorial board.
  • Reviewers must inform the journal if they are unable to review a paper or can do so only with some delay.
  • Reviewers must objectively judge the quality of the research reported, give fair, frank and constructive criticism and refrain from personal criticism of the authors. Comments made by referees may be seen by the authors. Therefore referees’ judgments should be explained and supported so that authors can understand the basis of the comments and judgments.
  • If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.

If you have any ethical concerns about a paper, whether published or in review, please contact the editor in the first instance. Please feel free to contact us for any further information via e-mail to