Review Workflow

All manuscripts submitted to Arado Business Journal (ABJ) are subject to a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept fully anonymous throughout all stages. The process is conducted via the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform and follows the four sequential stages described below:

Stage	Action	Timeline
1. Editorial Screening	The Editor-in-Chief and section editors verify scope alignment, structural and formatting compliance with the journal template, completeness of submission files, ethical declarations, and similarity index via Turnitin (≤20% similarity, excluding references and direct quotations).	5–7 business days
2. Double-Blind Peer Review	Manuscripts that pass screening are anonymized (author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and self-identifying citations are removed) and assigned to at least two independent reviewers with documented expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers receive only the anonymized manuscript and a structured review form.	30–45 days
3. Editorial Decision	The handling editor consolidates the reviewer reports. In cases of conflicting recommendations, a third reviewer or an editorial board member is consulted. The Editor-in-Chief issues one of four formal decisions based on scholarly merit and reviewer consensus.	7–10 days post-review
4. Author Notification	The decision letter, anonymized reviewer reports, and (where applicable) revision instructions are communicated to the corresponding author through the OJS platform.	Within 3 business days of decision

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected from ABJ's curated reviewer database according to the following objective criteria:

• Holding a doctoral degree (PhD) or equivalent academic rank in the relevant subject area.
• A documented record of peer-reviewed publications in business administration, management, or related fields.
• Verified ORCID iD and institutional affiliation.
• No conflict of interest with the authors (e.g., recent co-authorship, same institution, supervisory relationship within the past three years).
• Demonstrated subject-matter expertise based on keyword and topic mapping.

Evaluation Criteria

Each manuscript is assessed against a structured reviewer form covering four dimensions:

A. Scholarly Rigor

• Originality and novel theoretical or practical contribution.
• Methodological soundness, reproducibility, and analytical robustness.
• Data transparency in line with FAIR principles.

B. Practical Impact

• Relevance to business and administrative challenges, with particular attention to the Arab regional context.
• Policy and managerial applicability, including alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) where relevant.

C. Presentation Quality

• Clarity of arguments, logical structure, and quality of bilingual abstracts (Arabic and English).
• Adherence to APA 7th edition referencing and the journal's formatting template.

D. Ethics Compliance

• Compliance with COPE guidelines (authorship, conflicts of interest, research ethics).
• Appropriate citation practices and acknowledgement of all sources.

Editorial Decisions

Authors receive one of four formal decisions:

Decision	Description	Resubmission Window
Accept as-Is	The manuscript is accepted without further revision (uncommon at the initial review stage).	—
Minor Revisions	Limited typographic, formatting, or clarification edits are required; no new analyses needed.	14 days
Major Revisions	Substantive changes required (e.g., expanded literature review, additional analyses, methodological clarifications). Revised manuscripts are typically re-sent to the original reviewers.	60 days
Reject	The manuscript is declined due to significant methodological flaws, lack of originality, or being out of scope. Authors may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days.	— (appeal permitted)

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

• All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript prior to publication.
• Reviewers are required to decline any assignment where a real or perceived conflict of interest exists.
• Editors recuse themselves from handling submissions authored by close collaborators or members of their own institution.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

• Reviewers and editors are not permitted to upload manuscripts or any part of their content into generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini), as this would breach confidentiality.
• Reviewers must not rely on AI-generated assessments. Any limited use of AI for language editing of the review report must be disclosed to the editor.
• Authors are required to disclose any use of generative AI tools in the preparation of their manuscript, beyond routine language correction.

Transparency Measures

• Reviewer Reports: Anonymized reviewer comments and the editorial synthesis are shared with authors alongside every decision.
• Submission Dates: Each published article displays the dates of submission, acceptance, and publication.
• Maximum Turnaround: The total time from submission to first decision shall not exceed 90 days.
• Endogeny Limit: The proportion of articles in any issue authored by editors, editorial board members, or reviewers of ABJ shall not exceed 25%, in compliance with DOAJ best practice.
• Annual Transparency Report: ABJ publishes an annual report on submission volume, acceptance/rejection rates, average review time, and reviewer demographics.

Reviewer Pool Diversity

• ABJ maintains a geographically and institutionally diverse reviewer pool, with a target of at least 30% of reviewers affiliated with non-Arab institutions.
• Reviewer recruitment prioritizes gender balance and institutional diversity.
• Annual review-quality audits are conducted by ARADO's Editorial Ethics Committee.

Appeals Process

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief (abj@arado.org) within 30 days of receiving the decision. Appeals must include a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and any new supporting evidence. The appeal is reviewed by an independent editorial board member not involved in the original decision, and the outcome is final.