The Annals of Organizational Culture, Leadership and External Engagement Journal upholds a rigorous double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain mutually concealed throughout the evaluative process. This multi-stage procedure is designed to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and scientific merit of every published contribution.
All submitted manuscripts must represent original scholarship, must not be under simultaneous consideration by another outlet, and must not have appeared in any prior publication. The journal operates through a secure, fully digital platform for submission, review, and production.
The Review Process
1. Initial Editorial Pre-Check
Immediately upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or a designated Associate Editor undertakes a preliminary assessment of the manuscript. The focus rests on alignment with the journal's aim and scope, adherence to ethical research standards (e.g., ethical approvals, informed consent), and an initial screening for plagiarism. Submissions found noncompliant are subject to immediate desk rejection.
2. Subject Expert Assignment and Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the pre-check are forwarded to a qualified Associate Editor (or International Editor) who serves as the subject-matter authority for that submission and conducts a detailed internal appraisal of the methodology and scientific premise. The Associate Editor confirms the manuscript's suitability and is responsible for identifying and inviting at least two independent external reviewers whose expertise closely aligns with the manuscript's subject matter.
3. External Peer Review
At least two qualified external reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript for scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality of findings, and clarity of exposition. Reviewer reports and recommendations are conveyed to the Associate Editor and the EIC. The identities of authors and reviewers remain strictly concealed from one another throughout this stage.
4. Final Decision-Making
The Editor-in-Chief renders the final decision, weighing the recommendation of the assigned Associate Editor together with the comprehensive reports submitted by the external reviewers. Acceptance requires at least two favorable expert evaluations. Should reviewer recommendations diverge — one favoring acceptance, the other rejection — a third qualified expert is consulted to resolve the disagreement. Decisions grounded in a single review are reserved for rare, exceptional circumstances in which securing a second qualified reviewer proves unattainable (fewer than 5% of all reviewed cases), and any such decision must be thoroughly documented and justified by the EIC.
Editorial Decisions and Revision
Accept after Minor Revisions — Authors are required to address all reviewer comments within the specified timeframe.
Reconsider after Major Revisions — Authors must submit point-by-point responses to each reviewer comment. As a general rule, up to two rounds of substantial revision are permitted.
Reject and Encourage Resubmission — Manuscripts requiring major additional experiments or extensive data collection are declined, with an invitation to resubmit as a new submission once the requisite work has been completed.
Reject — Manuscripts exhibiting serious scientific flaws, significant ethical breaches, or an absence of original contribution are declined without the possibility of resubmission.
All reviewer comments must be addressed in a point-by-point fashion. Authors are expected to provide clear justification for any points of disagreement with the reviewers' critiques in their response letter.
Review Duration and Complaints Policy
Duration: The review process typically spans one to two months, depending on reviewer responsiveness and the complexity of the manuscript under consideration.
Complaints Policy: The journal is committed to resolving all complaints in a fair and constructive manner. Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision may do so by contacting the Editor-in-Chief directly. Complaints concerning journal policies, procedures, or editorial conduct are acknowledged within six working days, with progress updates provided every two weeks until final resolution is reached. The Editor-in-Chief's determination on such matters is considered conclusive.
Becoming a Reviewer: Qualified experts wishing to serve as peer reviewers are invited to contact the editorial office.
