BERKELEY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, ARTS & SCIENCES

Peer Review

Transparent, fair and independent evaluation

Review model

Proposed policy: double-anonymous external peer review. The journal must apply the chosen model consistently and explain any exceptions.

Initial screening

An editor checks scope, originality, ethics declarations, completeness and baseline scholarly quality. Desk rejection may occur with documented reasons.

External assessment

Normally seek at least two independent, appropriately qualified reviewer reports for research articles. Reviewer selection must avoid known conflicts of interest.

Editorial decisions

Possible decisions are accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. Authors receive constructive feedback and revision instructions. Final decisions rest with an authorised editor.

Appeals and complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal to an independent editorial contact. Complaints are documented and reviewed without retaliation.

Record retention

Retain reviewer invitations, reports, editorial decisions, revisions and relevant disclosures securely in accordance with a documented retention policy.