For Reviewers

‘The IJM’ follows Double Blinded Review process under the Peer Review. In this process both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous to each other.

In the abstract field of knowledge, setting a parameter could be incongruous with the immediate thought. But, one has to follow a certain norm while adjudging an article, when it comes to precision and appraisal. These are as follows:-

1)      Confidential:

Confidentiality is a key of expertise.  The we recommend a secret review process that is not shared between the reviewer and the author. This is entirely an individual product of the reviewer, where the judgement is made upon certain yardsticks, essential to a collective research   area. The editor, sometimes can be the collaborator in few cases but he certainly should not divulge out any bit of information to the author. Professional austerity is desirable.

2)      Blind review:

Blind review is meant for fair-dealing. By a logical extension of the above point, this very unique blind review process is launched where the reviewer is made entirely obliterated of the authors’ identity and whereabouts. This process serves to assure uniformity, impartiality and constraint on the part of the reviewer.

3)      Stipulated  time:

We put high value on time. Since the journal provides a rapid course with the publication, the entire review process is a meticulous analysis within a restricted time period. With a touch of skill and knowledge, the reviewer has to adhere to a given deadline.

4)      Originality:

We are synonymous with authenticity. Keeping relevance with the context, the submission has to be original in words and in idea. Reviewer should judge an article with respect to its genuineness.  It has to add wisdom to knowledge and views to news. Every article should possess some exponential substance within it. If the research finding collides with one of a time ahead, the article should immediately be passed on to the editor mentioning the reference portion along with its unique manuscript id.

5)      Structure:

We aims at structural review. As skeleton to human body, so is structure to an article. It helps the contents fit to its contour by opting for an amalgam of the stuffing and the frame. Each article has to be laid out in alliance with the convention where all the relating parts like abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions, reference and bibliography, are in proper consistency.

6)      Implementability:

Examples are better than precepts and examples are even wittier when they are exercised. Dealing with research and innovation, an article has to give an apt eye to the practicability of its proposition.  The suggestions have to be implemental than being only passively manipulative.

7)      Research:

A multi-disciplinary journal has an extensive research area. The articles are invited from different arenas of academics, management and technology with a view to create and disseminate knowledge, but the reviewer is not supposed to lose his/her foothold in the labyrinth of multiple studies. These articles should be reviewed following the conventional research methodology.

8)      Language:

Language is the career of idea. So it needs to be well-structured, simpler and familiar in order to merge with a lucid style of paraphrasing the different beneficial points and comments. Therefore, a smart diction is desirable on the part of the reviewer.