Peer Review Process
Refereeing policy for Managerial Modelling in Sustainable Development (MMSD):
All articles submitted to MMSD undergo a Double-blind peer review process. The Editorial Board makes every effort to ensure that the review process is conducted continuously, fairly, and systematically. It is noteworthy that manuscripts with international co-authors are given priority in the review and publication process.
Research papers submitted for publication in MMSD are typically sent to at least three expert reviewers in the relevant field, except for high-quality conference papers, which may be reviewed by only one qualified reviewer.
If one of the initial reviewers rejects the paper, it will be sent to a fourth reviewer for further evaluation. For publication, a manuscript must receive at least two positive recommendations from reviewers. In cases where a manuscript shows significant plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published works, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to reject the paper based on their own evaluation or on a reviewer’s report.
The editorial process in MMSD consists of the following stages:
Registration and Submission
The corresponding author must register on the journal’s website and provide complete information and affiliations for all authors. The manuscript can then be submitted in the required format specified by the journal.
Structural and Format Evaluation
At the initial stage, the Managing Editor reviews the manuscript to ensure compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and that all necessary data and files for evaluation are included. At this stage, a manuscript may be returned to the authors to complete missing materials or to make adjustments according to the journal’s requirements.
Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript in terms of its relevance to the journal’s aims, originality, and potential contribution. This stage represents the first qualitative assessment, and the paper may either be rejected or returned to the authors with recommendations for revision.
Plagiarism Check
Each submission is screened for plagiarism using Samimnoor and iThenticate similarity detection software. Based on the similarity report, the manuscript will either proceed to peer review or be rejected due to high similarity. The acceptable similarity index is below 20 percent
Reviewers' Suggestion and Invitation
At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief may directly invite qualified specialists in the relevant field to act as reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief may also consult section editors for suggestions of appropriate reviewers. The invitation process continues until two reviewers accept the invitation to review the paper (the manuscript status changes to “Under Review”). In certain cases—particularly for papers involving advanced methodologies or sensitive topics—additional reviewers may be invited.
First Decision after Review
Depending on the reviewers’ evaluation report for the article (an additional reviewer might be invited in case of conflict between reviewers’ reports), the Editorial Board will make one of the following four decisions:
The decision, along with the reviewers’ comments, is communicated to the corresponding author to assist in revising the paper or to clarify the reason for rejection.
Revision and Re-submission
After making the necessary revisions, the author must resubmit the manuscript along with any supplementary materials if required. The author should also provide a comprehensive response letter explaining how the reviewers’ and editor’s comments have been addressed. Authors have the right to disagree with specific review comments, but must provide reasonable justifications or alternative revisions when doing so.
Final Decision
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board after the revised version has been reviewed. If the revisions are satisfactory, an acceptance letter is issued, and the manuscript is sent to the publisher for production.