Peer Review Process
This journal employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure that the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout all stages of evaluation. Each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief to determine its alignment with the journal’s aims, scientific structure, and quality standards. Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to reviewers selected on the basis of subject-matter expertise, research background, scholarly experience, and the absence of conflicts of interest. The primary objective of the peer review process is to ensure the originality of the work, the methodological rigor of the research, and the overall scientific quality of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to critically and carefully engage with the submitted work and provide clear, evidence-based, constructive, and actionable feedback. The journal adheres to the peer review standards used in Elsevier publications (https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers) and expects reviewers to uphold the highest levels of accuracy and impartiality in their evaluations.
Mission of the Peer Review Process
The mission of the peer review process in this journal is to enhance scientific standards and ensure the quality of research published in the field of Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge. Peer review serves to strengthen the scholarly credibility of manuscripts, clarify analytical arguments, address potential weaknesses, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the discipline. It is a fundamental pillar of the journal’s scientific quality assurance system.
Vision
The journal’s vision is to create an inclusive platform where the voices of experts and researchers—bringing diverse, methodological, and evidence-based perspectives—can be heard and contribute meaningfully to the expansion of knowledge within the field of organizational knowledge management. The peer review process is designed to encourage the participation of scholars with varied academic and professional backgrounds and to improve the overall quality of published work through critical dialogue and analytical reflection.
Values
The journal upholds values such as scientific impartiality, mutual respect, professional conduct, methodological rigor, and constructive critique. Reviewers, selected from different countries, academic traditions, and disciplinary backgrounds, are required to provide assessments grounded in scientific evidence, logical reasoning, and precise analysis. Adherence to these values is consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org) and forms the ethical foundation of the journal’s review policies.
Ethical Standards of Peer Review
All components of the peer review process—including abstracts, manuscripts, reviewer comments, and editorial communications—must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from disclosing any part of this information to third parties. The use of ideas, data, or findings contained in a manuscript for personal, academic, or professional purposes without explicit permission from the authors and the Editor-in-Chief is strictly forbidden. Reviewer comments shared as part of the decision-making process are also confidential and may not be distributed or discussed outside the review process. These principles fully comply with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers).
Prohibition of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
According to the official COPE position statement on artificial intelligence (https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author) and Elsevier’s Responsible AI Use Policy (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/artificial-intelligence), the use of AI tools in the peer review process is strictly prohibited. Reviewers must not upload the manuscript—or any part of it—to AI systems, nor rely on AI tools for content analysis, scientific evaluation, recommendations for revision, or the generation of reviewer reports. This prohibition is necessary due to risks such as breaches of manuscript confidentiality, potential inaccuracies generated by AI systems, the absence of scientific judgment capabilities, and the lack of ethical accountability in AI-generated output. All evaluations must be conducted solely by qualified human reviewers. AI may be used only for minor linguistic refinement of the reviewer’s own notes, provided that no manuscript content is input into the system.
Reviewer Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting an invitation to review. Such conflicts may include professional, financial, organizational, research-based, or personal relationships with the authors. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must withdraw from the review process to preserve impartiality and scientific independence. This requirement aligns with COPE’s official guidelines on conflicts of interest (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/discussion-document-conflicts-interest).
Reviewer Expectations
Reviewers are expected to provide precise, scholarly, evidence-based, and respectful feedback. They should identify the strengths of the manuscript, clearly articulate scientific, methodological, or conceptual weaknesses, and offer actionable recommendations for improvement. Vague, unsupported, or generalized critiques are not acceptable. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the assigned timeframe and promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief if they are unable to perform the review. These expectations are aligned with Elsevier’s official guidelines on how to conduct a professional review (https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-review).
Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Manuscripts are assessed on criteria such as originality and scientific significance, alignment with the journal’s scope, quality of the theoretical foundation and literature review, methodological rigor, accuracy of data analysis, clarity of results, and practical or theoretical contribution. These criteria are consistent with the evaluation framework recommended by Elsevier (https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers).
Final Decision
Although reviewer feedback plays a crucial role in manuscript evaluation, the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. Decisions are made based on the scholarly quality of the manuscript, the journal’s policies, reviewer assessments, and the relevance of the work to the journal’s scope. The peer review process is advisory in nature, and editorial decisions constitute the final determination.