Editorial Policies & Governance
Official editorial standards, double-blind peer-review framework, conflict of interest rules, publication ethics (COPE), and appeals procedures for the Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Professional Practice.
Strict anonymisation for authors and reviewers to preserve impartiality.
Editorial judgments are strictly separated from administration and payments.
Rigorous plagiarism checks, research integrity, and clear 30-day appeal routes.
Invoicing occurs strictly after formal acceptance; full waiver support available.
Operating Structure & Editorial Independence
The Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Professional Practice (JMSPP) maintains an uncompromising boundary between scholarly evaluation and business operations. Every manuscript processed by the journal operates under a defined governance hierarchy:
Coordinates operational workflows, maintains the controlled manuscript register, logs correspondence, processes post-acceptance invoices, and facilitates production. The Administrator does not participate in academic evaluations and cannot override editorial judgment.
Set overarching scholarly standards, assign qualified handling editors, supervise desk screening, resolve escalations, and formally endorse final acceptance or rejection decisions.
Screen academic fit, commission two independent qualified reviewers, oversee revisions, and submit evidence-based recommendations to the final decision maker.
Assess manuscripts within their area of expertise, disclose potential conflicts, and provide substantive written reports recommending editorial outcomes.
Academic-Only Decision Standard
Acceptance decisions are rendered strictly on academic validity, originality, methodological rigour, and scholarly contribution. Acceptance is never promised in call-for-papers invitations or recruitment communications. Fast turnaround times or publication acceptances are never sold under any circumstances.
Peer Review Policy & Reviewer Responsibilities
JMSPP enforces a rigorous double-blind peer review workflow. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential to each other throughout the review cycle and following publication.
1. Reviewer Selection & Independence Criteria
- Two Independent Reports: Every published research article must receive at least two substantive independent evaluation reports from verified experts before an acceptance decision is rendered.
- Competence Over Prestige: Reviewers are appointed based on verified subject knowledge and methodology expertise. Selection is not determined solely by institutional prestige or doctoral seniority.
- Exclusion of Conflicts: Authors, the managing editor, close research collaborators, supervisors, family members, and individuals with personal or financial conflicts are strictly excluded.
- Three-Year Separation Rule: Reviewers who have co-authored papers or shared institutional supervision with any contributing author within the preceding three (3) years, as well as reviewers from the same academic institution, are ineligible to review the manuscript.
2. Prohibition of Public AI Tools & Generative AI
3. Reasoned Reports Required
Checkboxes or bare recommendations alone are unacceptable. Every reviewer must submit structured written feedback identifying substantive strengths and weaknesses. Acceptance comments must justify why the research satisfies publication criteria; revision requests must specify actionable amendments; rejection comments must articulate specific scholarly deficiencies.
4. Resolution of Conflicting Reports
Where two peer-review reports conflict materially, the responsible handling editor provides written reasoning and commissions a third independent expert. Conflicting evaluations are never resolved by simply counting votes.
Join Us as a Peer Reviewer (Call for Reviewers)
The Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Professional Practice (JMSPP) welcomes qualified scholars, researchers, and senior practitioners to join our international peer review community. As an independent reviewer, you play a vital role in upholding scholarly excellence, ensuring double-blind evaluation standards, and mentoring authors through constructive criticism.
Why Review for JMSPP?
Reviewer Eligibility Criteria
- Hold a Ph.D. or terminal master's degree in a relevant discipline, or possess senior recognized professional standing.
- Demonstrated research record with peer-reviewed publications in reputable international journals.
- Commitment to evaluate manuscripts impartially, objectively, and within our target turnaround window (7–10 days).
- Strict adherence to COPE publication ethics, author confidentiality, and total prohibition of feeding manuscripts into AI models.
How to Apply to Join Our Reviewer Board
Interested scholars and practitioners can register directly on our OJS website and select the Reviewer role with your reviewing interests, or email your CV and ORCID/Scopus link to our editorial office: editor@jmspp.com
Conflicts of Interest & Submission Restrictions for Editors
To prevent conflicts of interest, editorial bias, or undue influence, JMSPP enforces an explicit policy regarding submissions authored by editorial board members:
One-Year Submission Moratorium for Handling Editors and Editors
Handling Editors and Editors may not submit manuscripts to JMSPP during the first year from their formal appointment date. This restriction applies across all authorship roles, including first author, corresponding author, and co-author. Any manuscript listing a restricted editorial board member as an author will be returned immediately without peer review.
Submissions Following the Moratorium
Following the completion of the first year of appointment, submissions authored by editorial board members, journal administrators, or reviewers are subject to stringent independent handling:
- The authoring board member is completely recused and has zero access to the submission file, reviewer identities, or deliberations.
- The manuscript is assigned to an independent senior editor and evaluated by two independent external reviewers.
- Published articles must include an explicit disclosure statement explaining the independent handling process used.
Author & Reviewer Conflict Declarations
All authors must complete a conflict of interest declaration disclosing financial support, employment ties, consultancies, or commercial interests. Reviewers must immediately recuse themselves if they identify a financial, institutional, or personal connection to the submitted work.
Publication Ethics & Research Integrity
JMSPP applies its publication ethics and research integrity policies. We maintain zero tolerance for plagiarism, data falsification, fraudulent authorship, or duplicate submission.
Similarity & Plagiarism Screening
All incoming manuscripts undergo screening via similarity detection software. A similarity score serves as a prompt for qualified human qualitative assessment, not an automated accept/reject formula. Quotations, common methodological terms, and references are carefully contextualised.
Integrity Breach Escalation
If data fabrication, unconsented human research, dual submission, or peer-review manipulation is suspected, the manuscript is immediately paused. Evidence is preserved, a formal inquiry is directed to the authors, and senior editorial leadership determines remediation under the journal’s publication ethics policy.
Conceptual & Training Paper Standards
Authors submitting conceptual or theoretical papers must ensure they do not imply that proposed workplace or training benefits have been empirically demonstrated unless substantiated by empirical data.
Human & Animal Rights
Studies involving human participants must provide verifiable evidence of Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethical committee clearance and informed participant consent prior to peer review.
Appeals & Complaints Procedure
Authors possess the formal right to appeal an editorial decision if they demonstrate that the decision was influenced by factual misunderstanding, technical oversight, or documented procedural irregularity.
Authors must submit their formal appeal in writing within 30 calendar days of the decision notice, providing a comprehensive point-by-point rebuttal supported by documented evidence.
The appeal is adjudicated by an unconflicted senior editor who was not involved in the original editorial decision or peer-review handling.
The reviewing editor may consult an external specialist if necessary and will issue a formal written verdict (upholding rejection, requesting re-review, or permitting revision). The appeal outcome is final.
Complaints regarding journal operations or members of editorial leadership should be directed to the designated independent contact at editor@jmspp.com.
Article Processing Charges (APC) & Fee Transparency
JMSPP operates as a gold open access journal. There are no fees to submit a manuscript.
Fee Collection & Waiver Principles:
- No Submission Fee: Submission, desk screening, and double-blind peer review are provided completely free of charge.
- Post-Acceptance Invoicing: The US$100 APC is assessed exclusively after an unconflicted editor issues formal academic acceptance.
- Academic Separation: Handling editors evaluate manuscripts with zero reference to the author's financial status or ability to pay. Payment never substitutes for editorial approval.
- Waivers & Discounts: Full and partial waivers are available to authors from low-income economies or scholars facing financial hardship upon application before submission.
Corrections, Retractions & Long-Term Digital Preservation
Preserving the integrity of the scholarly record is a paramount obligation of JMSPP:
- Corrections (Errata/Corrigenda): If significant errors of fact or attribution are discovered post-publication, a formal notice of correction is published and permanently bi-directionally linked to the original article with date stamps. Content is never silently replaced.
- Retractions: If findings are determined to be unreliable as a result of honest error or misconduct (fabrication, plagiarism, unauthorized data use), the article is formally retracted in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.
- Digital Preservation: All published articles are open access under Creative Commons licenses (CC BY 4.0) and preserved across independent digital preservation services and offsite redundant backups.
Operational Service Targets (Internal Timelines)
The following targets represent internal benchmarks designed to ensure responsive and diligent manuscript handling. These are operational goals rather than contractual publication guarantees:
| Editorial Workflow Phase | Operational Target | Notes & Protocol |
|---|---|---|
| Desk Screening & Triage | 3–5 business days | Initial scope check, format compliance & plagiarism screening. |
| First Round Peer Review | 14–21 business days | From editor assignment to receipt of two independent expert reports. |
| Author Revision Window | 14–30 calendar days | 14 days for minor amendments; 30 days for major empirical revisions. |
| Final Decision | 5–7 business days | Following receipt of satisfactory revised files and rebuttal letter. |
| Production & Galley Proofing | 5–8 business days | Typesetting, author proof approval, DOI registration & archival deposition. |