Our Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Leadership, Ethics, Governance, and Sustainable Innovation (JLEGSI) maintains a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, objectivity and academic integrity. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout, eliminating potential bias and promoting impartial evaluation.

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief to determine their suitability in relation to the journal’s focus, scope and editorial standards. Only manuscripts that meet these criteria proceed to external peer review.

The journal strives to provide timely and transparent decisions, ensuring that authors receive constructive feedback to enhance the quality and impact of their research.

 

Guidelines and Responsibilities for Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in upholding the integrity and quality of JLEGSI’s scholarly publications. Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations ethically, objectively and in accordance with COPE’s standards.

1. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

• Reviewers must declare any personal, professional, financial, or intellectual conflicts of interest that may influence their objectivity.
• In the presence of a conflict, reviewers must decline the invitation to review.

2. Timeliness and Availability

• Reviewers should respond promptly to invitations and accept assignments only when they can complete the review within the specified timeframe (normally four -Five weeks).
• If delays arise, reviewers should notify the editorial office immediately so alternative arrangements can be made.

3. Objectivity and Constructive Evaluation

• Reviews should be balanced, evidence-based and free of personal bias or unsubstantiated criticism.
• Feedback must be constructive, helping authors strengthen the clarity, originality and methodological rigour of their work.
• Hostile, dismissive, or disrespectful comments are strictly prohibited.

4. Confidentiality

• All manuscripts and reviewer communications are confidential.
• Reviewers must not share, cite, or use unpublished material for personal advantage.
• Confidentiality remains binding even after the review process concludes.

5. Ethical Awareness

• If a reviewer identifies potential ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research practices), they must confidentially alert the Editor but refrain from conducting their own investigation.

6. Review Transfer (if applicable)

• In some cases, reviewers may be invited to transfer their reports to another journal within the publisher’s portfolio.
• This will only occur with the reviewer’s consent and any changes to evaluation criteria will be clearly communicated.

 

Preparing the Review Report

• Reviewer reports should follow the journal’s review template, providing:
  • A brief summary of the manuscript;
  • Strengths and weaknesses;
  • Specific, actionable recommendations; and
  • A clear recommendation (accept, revise, or reject).
• Comments must correspond logically with the final recommendation.
• Reviewers should avoid suggesting unnecessary self-citations or references that do not improve the work’s quality or relevance.

 

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are equally responsible for maintaining ethical conduct during and after the review process.

1. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Authors must declare all personal, institutional, or financial conflicts that could influence their research, results, or interpretation.

2. Timely and Transparent Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must respond comprehensively to reviewer comments and resubmit the revised manuscript within the allotted timeframe.

Each resubmission should include a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.

 

Post-Review Protocols

• Reviewers should remain open to reviewing revised versions of the manuscript, particularly if they evaluated the initial submission.
• If new information emerges that may affect their prior assessment, reviewers must promptly inform the journal.
• Confidentiality obligations continue to apply after the review process ends.