Reviewer Guidelines:
Submitted Manuscripts Editorial Procedures:
The following three-stage review process applies to all publications submitted to the International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies (IRJEMS).
Editorial Review (Stage 1)
The Section Editor will first examine whether the submission is appropriate for the Journal's purpose and whether the research is sound. The manuscript will be rejected if it does not match these conditions.
In the second phase, the author(s) are checked for compliance with the Journal's ethical standards, as well as the paper is tested for plagiarism using the IRJEMS’s technical team supported by the editorial board. The submission will be rejected without going through the peer-review process if the author(s) do not follow the Journal's ethical principles or if plagiarism is discovered.
The Editor assesses if the manuscript has been adequately prepared, assuming it fits the Journal's ethical requirements. If the manuscript has not been properly prepared, it is returned to the author(s) for modifications.
Review (Stage 2)
For a double-blind peer review of the manuscript, the Editor will choose at least two independent specialists. All of the professionals who participated in the double-blind peer review are unpaid volunteers. They have submitted their academic CV to the Journal and have been permitted to review papers within the scope of the Journal by the Editor and Editorial Board. Official reviews, including all comments, are kept private, and only the Author has access to them (s).
The Editor will notify the author(s) that the double-blind peer review process has resulted in one of the following results once both reviewers have submitted their reports:
• The manuscript is accepted in its current state.
• The manuscript has been approved with minimal changes. The author(s) has one week to send the Editor the corrected article.
• The manuscript has been accepted, subject to significant adjustments. The author(s) has one month to send the Editor the updated article.
• The manuscript is rejected with a request to resubmit with significant changes. If one or both reviewers believe the work requires more development and/or research to support the conclusions, they may ask the author to do so (s). If the author(s) decide to go down that path, they are encouraged to resubmit their work, which will be sent back to the same reviewers for further consideration.
• The manuscript is turned down.
AI Policy for Reviewers
Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Peer Review Process
The International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies (IRJEMS) recognizes the increasing availability and sophistication of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies. While these technologies may offer support in various professional and academic activities, their use within the peer review process must be governed by the highest standards of confidentiality, objectivity, academic integrity, and professional responsibility. Peer review is a critical component of scholarly publishing and relies fundamentally on independent human expertise, critical evaluation, and ethical judgment.
When a reviewer accepts an invitation to evaluate a manuscript submitted to IRJEMS, the manuscript and all associated materials must be treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers are entrusted with access to unpublished research, proprietary information, intellectual property, and potentially sensitive data belonging to the authors. Consequently, reviewers must not upload, share, submit, or otherwise disclose any part of a manuscript, supplementary materials, tables, figures, datasets, appendices, or associated files to publicly accessible generative AI systems, third-party AI platforms, or other external technologies. Such actions may compromise author confidentiality, violate intellectual property rights, expose unpublished research findings, and potentially breach applicable privacy and data protection regulations.
This obligation of confidentiality extends beyond the manuscript itself and includes all communications associated with the peer review process. Reviewer comments, evaluation reports, confidential remarks to editors, recommendations, and correspondence related to the review process frequently contain sensitive information concerning the manuscript, the authors, and the editorial assessment. Therefore, reviewers should not upload peer review reports or related communications into generative AI tools, even when the intended purpose is limited to language improvement, grammar correction, summarization, readability enhancement, translation, or drafting assistance. Maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the peer review process is an essential responsibility of every reviewer.
Peer review requires the application of subject expertise, scholarly knowledge, analytical reasoning, ethical consideration, methodological assessment, and independent professional judgment. The evaluation of a manuscript’s originality, scientific validity, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, practical significance, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication cannot be delegated to generative AI or AI-assisted technologies. Accordingly, reviewers must not use AI tools to analyze manuscripts, generate review reports, formulate recommendations, assess research quality, identify strengths and weaknesses, or otherwise influence their review conclusions. Such responsibilities require human intellectual engagement and accountability that cannot be replicated by automated systems.
Although AI technologies continue to evolve, they remain susceptible to generating inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, fabricated, or biased outputs. Reliance on AI-generated assessments may lead to flawed evaluations, inappropriate recommendations, overlooked methodological issues, or unfair treatment of authors. Reviewers are therefore expected to conduct reviews independently and ensure that all observations, criticisms, recommendations, and conclusions presented in their reports are derived from their own expertise and professional judgment. The reviewer remains fully responsible and accountable for the content, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of the review report submitted to the journal.
In accordance with the IRJEMS AI Policy for Authors, authors may utilize generative AI and AI-assisted technologies during certain stages of manuscript preparation, subject to appropriate disclosure and compliance with journal policies. Any disclosed use of AI by authors should be considered within the context of the journal’s established guidelines on transparency, originality, and research integrity. The existence of an AI disclosure statement does not alter the reviewer’s responsibility to evaluate the scientific quality, validity, and contribution of the manuscript using independent scholarly judgment.
If reviewers suspect inappropriate use of AI technologies, including but not limited to undisclosed AI-generated content, fabricated references, manipulated data, synthetic research findings, image manipulation, plagiarism, compromised authorship practices, or other potential breaches of publication ethics, they should communicate their concerns confidentially to the handling editor. Such concerns will be evaluated in accordance with the journal’s editorial procedures, publication ethics policies, and research integrity standards.
IRJEMS may employ proprietary, licensed, or internally managed AI-assisted technologies to support selected publishing operations, including manuscript screening, plagiarism detection, reference verification, duplicate submission identification, reviewer selection support, and workflow management. These systems operate under strict confidentiality, privacy, security, and ethical safeguards designed to protect the interests of authors, reviewers, editors, and the scholarly community. Any AI-assisted technologies utilized by the journal are subject to appropriate oversight, periodic evaluation, and measures intended to minimize bias and maintain fairness throughout the publication process.
IRJEMS supports the responsible and ethical exploration of technological innovations that enhance the quality and efficiency of scholarly publishing. However, the journal maintains that peer review remains a fundamentally human activity requiring expertise, critical thinking, independence, and professional accountability. AI technologies may assist certain administrative publishing functions under controlled conditions, but they cannot replace the intellectual responsibilities entrusted to reviewers.
Ultimately, responsibility for the peer review process rests exclusively with human reviewers. Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of confidentiality, impartiality, objectivity, professionalism, and academic integrity throughout the evaluation process. The trust placed in peer review by authors, editors, readers, and the broader research community depends upon the careful exercise of independent human judgment, which remains indispensable to maintaining the quality and credibility of scholarly publication.