Decision-Making Process

Editorial Decision-Making Process

Lead Sci Journal of Management, Innovation and Social Sciences (LSJMISS)

At LSJMISS, we are committed to a transparent, rigorous, and ethical editorial process that upholds the highest standards of interdisciplinary academic publishing. Each manuscript is evaluated to ensure originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s focus on management, innovation, and social sciences.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Preliminary Editorial Review

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial check to confirm:

  • Compliance with journal formatting and submission guidelines (title page, abstract, keywords, references, etc.)

  • Adherence to LSJMISS’s plagiarism policy (maximum 10% similarity)

  • Submission of author details, ethical declarations (if applicable), funding disclosures, and license agreements

Scope and Relevance Check

The Editor-in-Chief or designated Section Editor assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal's multidisciplinary scope and offers a meaningful scholarly contribution. Manuscripts outside the scope may be desk-rejected without external review.

2. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Assignment

Submissions that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers under a double-blind peer review system.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and theoretical or practical contribution to the field

  • Soundness of research design and methodology

  • Clarity and logic of argumentation and analysis

  • Relevance to contemporary issues in management, innovation, or social sciences

  • Adherence to ethical and scholarly standards

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer decisions typically fall into one of the following categories:

✅ Accept
✏️ Minor Revisions
???? Major Revisions (with possible re-review)
❌ Reject

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

Synthesis of Reviews

The handling editor reviews the peer reports. In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted, or the editorial board may deliberate collectively.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the handling editor, makes the final decision. Possible outcomes include:

  • Accept

  • Accept with Minor Revisions

  • Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions)

  • Reject

Authors are informed via a formal decision letter, including anonymized reviewer feedback.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions

Authors are given 2–3 weeks to make minor changes. These are reviewed internally by the editorial team.

Major Revisions

Authors are given up to 6 weeks for major revisions. Revised manuscripts may undergo re-review, especially if substantial changes are made to arguments, data, or conclusions.

Resubmission After Rejection

Rejected manuscripts are generally not reconsidered. However, resubmission as a new manuscript may be permitted if significant revisions are made based on editorial feedback.

5. Communication and Appeals

Decision Notification

Authors receive a decision email outlining:

  • The editorial outcome

  • Consolidated reviewer feedback

  • Next steps for revision or publication (if applicable)

Appeals Process

Authors may submit a written appeal with justifications if they believe the editorial decision was flawed. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent panel. Decisions on appeals are final.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

Final Submission

Once accepted, authors must submit:

  • Final revised manuscript

  • Author biographies

  • Signed copyright/license form

  • High-resolution tables/figures (if applicable)

Copyediting and Proofs

Manuscripts undergo copyediting to ensure clarity, formatting, and academic tone. Authors are given final proofs for approval before publication.

Online Publication

Accepted articles are published in the upcoming issue and made openly accessible under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

7. Ethical Oversight

Conflict of Interest

All contributors—including authors, reviewers, and editors—must declare any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

Research Ethics Compliance

Submissions involving human subjects, surveys, or institutional data must include a statement of ethical approval or informed consent, where applicable.

Integrity of Data and Reporting

LSJMISS promotes academic integrity and responsible reporting. Suspected cases of data manipulation, plagiarism, or duplicate publication may result in rejection, retraction, or institutional notification.

This editorial workflow reflects LSJMISS's commitment to publishing credible, ethical, and impactful scholarship across the fields of management, innovation, and social sciences.