Peer Review Process

Future Applied Management Journal (FAMJ) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal published by Global Research Collaboration. Every paper submitted to FAMJ undergoes a rigorous peer-review process involving competent experts in relevant fields. The peer-review mechanism ensures academic quality, methodological rigor, and credibility of all published works. The peer-review workflow in FAMJ proceeds through eleven stages as outlined below.

---

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author uploads the manuscript through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. To facilitate authors during the transition period, FAMJ also temporarily accepts submissions via email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The submitted paper was first assessed by the editor of Fundamental and Applied Management Journal. The editor checks whether it is suitable for the journal’s focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure that it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, the minimum required quality of the paper for publication is assessed at this step, including whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper that passes this step will be checked by Turnitin or iThenticate to measure the similarity index, which leads to plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief checks whether the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without further review.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals who he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on their expertise, the closeness of their research interests, and no conflict of interest considerations. The peer review process at Fundamental and Applied Management Journal involves a community of experts who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial reviews. Impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity; conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity. The paper was sent to the reviewers anonymously.

5. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide whether to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for the suggestion of an alternative reviewer when he or she declines to review.

6. Review is Conducted

The reviewers allocated time to read the paper several times. The first reading was used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewers may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they read the paper several more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal with a recommendation to accept, reject, or revise it (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all the returned reviews before making an overall decision on the manuscript. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter informing them of the outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps

If accepted, the paper was sent for copy editing. Suppose the article is rejected or sent back to the author for major or minor revisions. In this case, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The authors should make the necessary corrections and revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and instructions.

• After the revisions have been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor.
• If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version unless they have opted out of further participation. However, if only minor changes are requested, this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
• If the editor is satisfied with the revised paper, it will be accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and will be freely available as downloadable PDF files.