Reviewing process

Peer review is conducted in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and related COPE guidance.

All manuscripts submitted to Management Science Advances are initially screened by the Editorial Office to determine whether they are properly prepared, comply with the journal's ethical policies, and fall within the journal's scope. Manuscripts that clearly do not comply with the journal's ethical requirements may be rejected before peer review. Manuscripts that are incomplete or not prepared in accordance with the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for correction and resubmission.

After the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief, a designated Handling Editor, a Guest Editor, or an independent Editorial Board member in cases of potential conflict of interest will conduct a preliminary editorial assessment. This assessment considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal, scientific and methodological soundness, originality, clarity, and potential contribution to management science and related fields. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's editorial standards may be rejected without external peer review. Where appropriate, such decisions may be verified by the Editor-in-Chief or another independent senior editor.

Editorial Board members may submit manuscripts to the journal. Such submissions are handled under the same editorial and peer-review standards as all other manuscripts. The submitting Editorial Board member is excluded from all stages of the editorial process, has no access to reviewer identities or confidential editorial discussions, and the manuscript is assigned to an independent editor with no relevant conflict of interest. The journal takes additional measures to ensure that such manuscripts receive an impartial and rigorous peer-review process.

The journal uses appropriate similarity-detection software to screen submitted manuscripts for potential plagiarism and unacceptable text overlap.

 

Peer Review

Once a manuscript passes the initial editorial checks, it will normally be assigned to at least two independent experts for double-blind peer review. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors during the review process.

Peer-review reports and related editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or otherwise use unpublished information contained in a submitted manuscript for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, provide constructive comments, and identify both major strengths and areas requiring improvement.

The handling editor is responsible for evaluating the reviewers' reports and making an editorial recommendation. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor. Editorial decisions may be reconsidered only through the journal's formal appeals procedure.

For regular submissions, the Editorial Office or handling editor invites suitable reviewers. Reviewers may include qualified members of the Editorial Board, Guest Editors, or external subject experts, provided that no relevant conflict of interest exists.

For special issues, Guest Editors may recommend suitable reviewers, but the journal retains responsibility for ensuring reviewer independence, appropriate expertise, and compliance with the journal's ethical standards.

Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may be considered, but the journal is under no obligation to invite them. Reviewers should not have recent collaborative, institutional, supervisory, financial, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as affecting their impartiality. As a general rule, reviewers should not have published with the authors during the preceding five years and should not currently be employed by the same institution as any of the authors.

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own work, the work of close colleagues, particular authors, or the journal. Citation suggestions must be directly relevant and necessary for improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript. Reviewers are referred to the relevant COPE guidance on inappropriate citation requests .

Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and related materials as confidential. Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and confidential editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI or AI-assisted tools. AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment, critical assessment, or responsibility for the review report.

Where a private or institutionally approved AI-assisted tool is used solely for limited language, grammar, or structural assistance, confidentiality must be preserved and human oversight must be maintained. The reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and content of the submitted review report.

Reviewers should maintain a professional and neutral tone and provide constructive criticism intended to help authors improve their work. Derogatory, discriminatory, hostile, or otherwise inappropriate comments will not be tolerated.

Reviewers must keep the manuscript and all associated information confidential. If a review report does not meet the journal's standards of quality, relevance, professionalism, or ethical conduct, the reviewer may be asked to revise the report, or the report may be disregarded and an additional reviewer invited.

Editorial Decision and Revision

Original research articles and review articles submitted to Management Science Advances are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers before a final editorial decision is made.

Following peer review, the editor will communicate one of the following decisions:

• Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication subject to limited revisions. Authors are normally expected to submit the revised manuscript and a point-by-point response within 7–14 days.

• Reconsider after Major Revisions: Substantial revision is required before the manuscript can be reconsidered. Authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments. Where authors disagree with a comment, a clear and reasoned justification must be provided. Authors are normally given up to four weeks to submit a revised manuscript. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers where necessary.

• Reject and Encourage Resubmission: The manuscript requires substantial additional work that cannot reasonably be addressed within a normal revision cycle. Authors may be invited to prepare a fundamentally revised manuscript and submit it as a new submission. Any resubmitted manuscript will receive a new submission record and may undergo a new peer-review process.

• Reject: The manuscript has major scientific, methodological, ethical, conceptual, or editorial deficiencies, falls outside the journal's scope, or does not provide a sufficient contribution for publication in the journal. No invitation for resubmission is made.

The number of revision rounds is determined by the editor based on the nature of the required changes, the quality of the authors' responses, and the reviewers' recommendations. The journal does not apply an automatic fixed limit on the number of revision rounds.

All reviewer and editor comments should be addressed in a point-by-point response. Revised manuscripts should clearly indicate how the requested changes have been incorporated.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection decision by submitting a written appeal to the Editorial Office. The appeal must provide a detailed and reasoned justification and should address the relevant editorial and reviewer comments point by point.

Appeals are considered only when the authors can demonstrate a potential factual error, procedural irregularity, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or other substantive reason for reconsideration. An appeal is not a second opportunity to obtain a different decision solely because the authors disagree with the original editorial judgment.

The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or, where appropriate, by an independent senior editor or Editorial Board member who was not directly responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant conflict of interest. The reviewing editor may uphold the original decision, request further expert evaluation, or recommend reconsideration of the manuscript.

Reviewer identities will remain confidential and will not normally be disclosed as part of the appeals process. Confidential reviewer information may be accessed internally only where necessary for the proper evaluation of the appeal and in accordance with the journal's confidentiality obligations.

If the original decision is upheld after formal appeal, the appeal decision is final.

For manuscripts submitted to a special issue, appeals concerning editorial decisions will be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor who was not responsible for the original decision. The Guest Editor will not have sole authority over the appeal where a potential conflict of interest exists.