The International Journal of Management Science and Operations Research (IJMSOR) implements a rigorous, transparent, and structured peer review process designed to ensure the quality, integrity, and scientific relevance of all published content. The journal follows a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the evaluation process to guarantee impartiality and reduce bias.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a multi-stage editorial workflow. Upon submission, manuscripts are first subject to an initial editorial screening (pre-check), in which the editorial office verifies compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, ethical standards, and originality criteria. At this stage, the manuscript may be rejected without external review if it does not meet minimum quality or relevance thresholds.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an editor with expertise in the subject area, who oversees the peer review process. The editor selects at least two independent reviewers with demonstrated academic and research experience relevant to the manuscript’s topic. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

During the evaluation process, reviewers assess the manuscript based on criteria including originality, methodological rigor, scientific contribution, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviewers are required to provide detailed, constructive, and evidence-based feedback, as well as a clear recommendation regarding the editorial decision.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. In cases of conflicting reviews, the editor may solicit additional evaluations or make a reasoned decision based on the available reports.

Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, by the original reviewers to verify that comments have been adequately addressed. The editorial process continues until a final decision is reached.

The journal maintains defined performance indicators for its editorial process. The average review time is between six and eight weeks, and the acceptance rate ranges from 25% to 35%, reflecting a selective and quality-oriented editorial policy.

IJMSOR enforces strict confidentiality throughout the review process. All participants, including authors, reviewers, and editors, are required to declare any conflicts of interest. Reviewers must not use unpublished materials for personal advantage and must treat all submitted content as confidential.

The journal applies quality control mechanisms at multiple stages of the editorial process, including plagiarism detection, verification of anonymization, and editorial consistency checks. Additionally, manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board or affiliated institutions are subject to enhanced safeguards, including independent editorial handling and strict adherence to double-blind procedures.

This structured and transparent peer review system ensures that all published articles meet the highest standards of scientific quality, ethical integrity, and academic relevance.

 

Confidentiality

The International Journal of Management Science and Operations Research (IJMSOR) ensures the confidentiality of all manuscripts submitted throughout the editorial process.

Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Their content must not be disclosed, shared, or used by individuals outside the editorial process prior to publication.

Editors, reviewers, and members of the editorial team are required to maintain confidentiality at all stages of the peer review process. In particular:

• They must not share the manuscript or discuss its content with third parties without authorization from the responsible editor
• They must not use any information contained in the manuscript for personal, academic, or professional advantage
• They must respect the confidential nature of the data, results, and methodological approaches presented

Reviewers must decline to evaluate manuscripts in which a conflict of interest exists or when they are unable to guarantee the confidentiality of the process.

All information related to the peer review process, including reviewer comments, editorial decisions, and manuscript versions, will be handled confidentially and used exclusively for editorial purposes.

The identities of both reviewers and authors are protected under the double-blind peer review model, unless otherwise specified by the journal’s editorial policies.

Any breach of confidentiality will be considered a serious violation of editorial ethics and may result in removal from the process, notification to relevant institutions, and other actions in accordance with the journal’s policies.

 

Editorial Process

Initial Review – Pre-Check

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief

Outcome: An email notification sent to the author indicating one of the following: acceptance for entry into the peer review process, request for revisions, or rejection.

During the Initial Review phase, the following aspects are verified:

• Whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s thematic and methodological scope.
• Whether authorship, affiliation, and metadata information are complete and reliable.
• Whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s guidelines (Author Guidelines).
• Whether the references section is adequate in length, up-to-date, and composed of recognized sources with corresponding DOI links.
• Whether the manuscript has not been previously published in another journal in either Spanish or English.
• Whether the manuscript complies with ethical standards and best practices in scientific publishing as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for Editors, and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.
• Whether the manuscript shows evidence of plagiarism.
• Whether the manuscript meets minimum standards of writing, grammar, and punctuation.
• Whether the manuscript is accompanied by the required documentation, including the Statement of Originality and Author Information Form.

Manuscripts with evidence of plagiarism, false authorship information, or ethical issues will be immediately rejected.

Manuscripts that do not meet certain criteria (excluding plagiarism or ethical issues) may be revised and resubmitted within a specified period. Submissions lacking required documentation will not proceed to peer review until all requirements are fulfilled.

Due to the diversity of topics, the Editor-in-Chief may be supported in this phase by the Editorial Coordinator, Editorial Board, and Scientific Committee.

 

Online Tracking. Once accepted for peer review, the manuscript status will change from “Waiting for Assignment” to “In Review.” Authors may track progress through the “Review” section of the platform.

Each submission is assigned a unique identification number. Authors must include this ID in all correspondence.

 

Peer Review

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Coordinator

The peer review process typically takes 4 to 6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.

IJMSOR follows a double-blind peer review process, in which:

• Reviewers are external experts
• Identities of authors and reviewers are concealed
• At least two reviewers evaluate each manuscript

This ensures confidentiality and objectivity.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

• Minimum academic degree: Master’s in the relevant field
• Scientific publications in the topic area within the last 2 years
• No affiliation with the authors’ institution
• No conflicts of interest

Reviewers receive an invitation, which they may accept or decline. If accepted, they gain access to the anonymized manuscript and an evaluation form via OJS or institutional email.

 

Evaluation Criteria. Reviewers assess:

• Title, abstract, and structure
• Introduction, methodology, arguments, results, discussion, and conclusions
• Scientific contribution and impact

Review Outcomes

• Accept without revisions
• Accept with minor revisions
• Accept with major revisions (requires re-evaluation)
• Reject

In case of conflicting reviews, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

Reviewers receive a certificate within one month after completing the evaluation.

 

Editorial Decision

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editor

After receiving at least two reviews, the Editor-in-Chief has 2 weeks to notify the author.

Possible decisions:

• Accept
• Reject
• Request revisions (minor or major)

If the decision differs from reviewers’ recommendations, it must be justified.

Decisions may be delegated to Guest Editors. Editors with conflicts of interest are excluded.

Authors receive an email with:

• Decision
• Reviewers’ comments
• Deadline for revisions

Online Tracking. If rejected, the manuscript is removed from the process and archived.

 

Author Revision

Responsible: Authors

Deadlines:

• Minor revisions: 1 week
• Major revisions: 2 weeks

Authors must respond to all reviewer comments and submit revised documents.

Acceptance Criteria. A manuscript is accepted when:

• Reviews are positive
• Minor revisions are completed
• Major revisions are successfully re-evaluated

A final plagiarism check and documentation verification are conducted.

Online Tracking. Once accepted, the status changes to “In Editing”.

Production and Publication

Responsible: Authors, Editorial Coordinator, Layout Editor

Timeline:

• 20 business days for layout and language editing
• 3 business days to resolve queries
• 3 business days for final corrections
• 3 business days for online publication

 

Rejection Rate

2019, 18%

2020, 24%

2021, 29%

2022, 38%

2023, 40%

2024, 50%

2025, 52%

2026, 54%

 

IMPORTANT. By accepting the invitation to review a manuscript, the reviewer declares:

• No conflict of interest
• Compliance with ethical standards
• Adherence to confidentiality and plagiarism policies established by the journal