Peer Review Policies

Journal of Enterprise and Development (JED) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality and integrity in the peer review process. The peer review system plays a crucial role in ensuring the academic rigor and scholarly value of articles published in JED.

Review Model
JED employs a double-blind peer review process, where both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This ensures impartiality and objectivity in the evaluation of manuscripts.

Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, academic qualifications, and experience relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter. Reviewers are drawn from a diverse pool of national and international scholars to maintain an unbiased and comprehensive evaluation.

Review Criteria
Manuscripts submitted to JED are evaluated based on the following criteria:
• Originality: The manuscript must present novel and original research.
• Relevance: The study must be relevant to the journal’s scope and objectives.
• Methodological Soundness: The research methodology must be robust, transparent, and appropriate to the research questions posed.
• Clarity and Quality of Writing: The manuscript must be well-organized, clearly written, and free from grammatical errors.
• Scholarly Contribution: The study should make a significant contribution to existing knowledge or offer new insights.

Review Process
1. Submission Check: All manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal’s formatting and ethical standards.
2. Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers for assessment.
3. Review Duration: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 4 weeks from the date of invitation. Extensions may be granted in special circumstances.
4. Review Outcome: Reviewers provide a comprehensive assessment and recommend one of the following: a) Accept without revisions, b) Accept with minor revisions, c) Major revisions required, and d) Reject.
5. Decision Making: The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers' recommendations and editorial judgment.

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial team. If a potential conflict of interest exists, reviewers must notify the editor immediately and recuse themselves from the review process.

Post-Review Communication
Authors are notified of the decision along with detailed comments from reviewers. If revisions are required, authors must address each comment and provide a response document explaining how the revisions have been made.

Appeals and Revisions
Authors who wish to appeal a decision must contact the editorial office with a detailed justification. Appeals will be evaluated by the editorial board, and a final decision will be made.