Peer Review Process and Policy

Based on the info about the journal and the scope of journal, the Journal of Project Management Practice (JPMP) peer-review policy is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and supporting ethical research practices. Peer review, in all forms, is crucial for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. This process relies heavily on trust and requires everyone involved to act responsibly and ethically. The Ethical Code of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which outlines the fundamental principles and standards for peer reviewers, shall serve as the primary reference for JPMP in all matters related to the peer-review process, including the resolution of any issues that may arise.

In general, the following outlines the review process for all manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Project Management Practice (JPMP):

Type of Peer Review:

The Journal of Project Management Practice (JPMP) employs a double-blind peer review process to maintain anonymity between authors and reviewers. Reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities, and authors do not know who has reviewed their work, both during and after the review process. To support this, authors are required to submit a separate title page containing full author details, distinct from the main manuscript.

Referee Selection Process:

Referees are selected based on their subject-matter expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript. The Journal of Project Management Practice (JPMP) maintains and regularly updates its reviewer database through the JPMP Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. While authors are welcome to suggest potential referees, these recommendations are non-binding and may not be followed. Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent referees, after which the editor makes the final decision regarding publication.

Evaluation Criteria:

Referees are requested to assess the manuscript based on the following evaluation criteria:

  • The manuscript accurately and comprehensively cites previous relevant work, following APA style, with consistency between in-text citations and the reference list.
  • The research employs a sound and appropriate methodology that supports the study’s objectives and findings.
  • The manuscript clearly presents the results, includes appropriate statistical and qualitative analysis, and demonstrates how the findings support the conclusions.
  • The manuscript provides a well-developed discussion and clearly articulates the implications of the research findings.
  • The manuscript is written in clear, concise language and demonstrates a high standard of scholarly communication.
  • The manuscript demonstrates originality and makes a meaningful contribution to the advancement of the field.
  • The manuscript complies with relevant ethical standards, with particular attention to the avoidance of plagiarism.

While language correction is not an explicit component of the peer-review process, referees may offer suggestions to enhance the manuscript’s language and stylistic quality. At the final stage of review, the editor will evaluate the manuscript for linguistic accuracy and stylistic coherence, and may implement or recommend appropriate revisions. In exceptional cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author for thorough proofreading or substantial language and style improvements.

Peer Review Process:

Upon receiving a review invitation via the JPMP Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, referees should respond by clicking the provided link to confirm their availability to review the manuscript.

The referee should then follow the steps outlined on the OJS platform. Feedback can be provided either by entering comments directly into the designated box for authors or by uploading a separate file. Finally, the referee must submit an initial recommendation by selecting one of the available decision options.

  1. Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and is ready to proceed to copyediting and publication.
  2. Revisions Required: Minor revisions are needed; these may be reviewed again by the referee or accepted at the editor’s discretion.
  3. Resubmit for Review: Major revisions are necessary, and the revised manuscript will require a new round of peer review.
  4. Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript does not align with the journal’s scope or standards and is better suited for a different journal publication.
  5. Decline Submission: The manuscript contains substantial weaknesses and does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

Duration of review process:

The duration of the review process depends largely on the responsiveness of the referees. On average, the process takes approximately 1 to 3 months.

Final report and decision:

Based on the referee reports, their recommendations, and the revisions submitted by the authors, the editor will make the final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript. The decision will be notified to the author(s) via the JPMP Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.