Peer-Review Process

Peer review is the foundation of rigorous academic publishing. At Content Majestic Publishers (CMP), we recognise that reviewers are the scientific community’s most trusted quality guardians.

CMP operates an exclusively double-blind peer review process across all journals. We are committed to maintain a rigorous, transparent, and independent evaluation process for all submitted manuscripts. Our review process is aligned with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Initial Assesment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial technical screening by the Managing Editor to verify compliance with the journal’s submission requirements, formatting standards, ethical policies, and publication guidelines. Manuscripts that successfully pass this assessment are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for an editorial evaluation of their originality, scientific quality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and suitability for peer review.

To maintain editorial independence and avoid conflicts of interest, any manuscript submitted by the Editor-in-Chief is managed by a designated member of the Editorial Board, who assumes full responsibility for the editorial decision-making process.

Following the editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief (or the assigned handling editor, where applicable) may:

Proceed with external peer review;
Return the manuscript to the authors for revision before peer review; or
Reject the manuscript if it falls outside the journal’s scope or does not meet the required scientific, ethical, or editorial standards.

Role of Reviewer

A peer reviewer is an independent expert who evaluates the scientific quality, methodological rigour, ethical integrity, and originality of a submitted manuscript. The reviewer’s role is advisory, the final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief but the quality of the reviewer’s assessment is the primary input into that decision.

All reviewers are required to:

Uphold research quality and integrity by ensuring that only scientifically sound and ethically conducted research is recommended for publication.
Protect the scientific record by identifying misleading, inaccurate, unethical, or fraudulent research before publication.
Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback that helps authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific value of their manuscripts.
Support the journal’s credibility by contributing to a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process.
Apply subject-specific expertise to evaluate the manuscript accurately and objectively.
Maintain impartiality and independence, ensuring all assessments are free from personal, institutional, financial, or commercial bias.
Treat all manuscripts as confidential, and do not share, discuss, or use unpublished content for personal benefit.
Communicate promptly with the editorial office and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
Comply with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the journal’s editorial policies.
Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting or conducting a review.
Prepare reviews personally without using generative AI to write or substantially draft the review report.
Exercise independent professional judgment, making recommendations based solely on the scientific merits and ethical standards of the manuscript.

Reviewer Selection and Eligibility

Reviewers are selected through a structured and impartial process to ensure an independent, fair, and expert evaluation of every manuscript.
The Editor-in-Chief may recommend 3-5 potential reviewers from the Editorial Board, the journal’s Reviewers’ Panel, or other qualified experts, while the Editorial Office may also identify additional reviewers from the wider scientific community based on subject expertise.
All prospective reviewers are screened by the Editorial Office to verify their qualifications, expertise, eligibility, and independence before appointment.
Reviewers should hold a current academic, clinical, research, or relevant industry affiliation and, where appropriate, possess a doctoral degree (PhD or equivalent) in the relevant discipline.
Reviewers must demonstrate subject-matter expertise through peer-reviewed publications indexed in recognized scholarly databases. Previous peer-review or editorial experience is preferred but not mandatory.
Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s discipline and methodology.
Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors and must have no actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, including personal, professional, financial, or collaborative relationships that could influence their judgment.
Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are not automatically appointed, and all reviewer appointments remain at the discretion of the editorial team.
Reviewer selection is based solely on scientific expertise, independence, and objectivity, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, race, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics.
All reviewers must comply with the journal’s ethical standards, including maintaining confidentiality, declaring conflicts of interest, and adhering to recognized peer-review ethics (e.g., COPE guidelines).
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, thorough, and timely evaluations based solely on the scientific quality, originality, and merit of the manuscript.

Responding to Invitations

Review invitations are sent through the CMP Open Journal Systems (OJS) and include the manuscript title, abstract, journal name, article type, review deadline, and links to respond and access the reviewer guidelines.
Accept a review invitation only if the manuscript falls within your area of expertise and you can provide a thorough, high-quality evaluation.
Ensure you can complete the review within the requested deadline before accepting the invitation.
Assess and declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting the review assignment.
Inform the editor if you have previously reviewed the same manuscript for another journal.
Respond to the review invitation within five (5) working days by accepting or declining through the OJS platform.
If you are unable to review the manuscript, decline the invitation promptly to avoid delays in the editorial process.
When declining, you may recommend qualified alternative reviewers with relevant subject expertise, where appropriate.
If circumstances change after accepting the invitation, immediately notify the editorial office if you cannot complete the review or if a conflict of interest arises.
Do not abandon an accepted review assignment without notification, as this delays the peer-review and publication process for authors.

Conducting the Review

The following structured approach is recommended.

Read the manuscript thoroughly from the title to the references to understand the research objectives, study design, methodology, key findings, and conclusions before making any judgments.
Verify the journal fit by confirming that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims and scope, article type, and submission requirements.
Assess originality and scientific significance by determining whether the study addresses a meaningful research gap, presents novel findings, and contributes to existing knowledge.
Evaluate the title, abstract, and keywords to ensure they accurately represent the study and facilitate appropriate indexing and discoverability.
Critically examine the introduction and literature review to confirm that the research background is adequate, relevant literature is cited, and the study objectives are clearly justified.
Review the methodology to determine whether the study design, sampling methods, data collection procedures, measurement tools, ethical considerations, and statistical analyses are appropriate, valid, and sufficiently detailed for replication.
Evaluate the results by ensuring that findings are presented clearly, figures and tables are accurate and properly labelled, and statistical analyses support the reported outcomes without evidence of selective reporting.
Assess the discussion and conclusions to confirm that interpretations are supported by the results, study limitations are acknowledged, conclusions are justified, and the implications are appropriately discussed.
Review references and citations by checking that key literature has been cited, references are accurate and current, in-text citations match the reference list, and there is no evidence of inappropriate citation practices.
Evaluate ethical compliance by verifying ethics approval, informed consent (where applicable), conflict of interest disclosures, funding statements, and adherence to relevant reporting guidelines for the study design.
Assess writing quality and presentation by considering the clarity, organization, grammar, terminology, and overall readability of the manuscript. Language issues alone should not be grounds for rejection if the scientific content is sound.
Document specific comments by identifying strengths, weaknesses, and required revisions with clear, constructive, evidence-based feedback, including page and line numbers whenever possible.
Formulate an editorial recommendation that is consistent with the written review and supported by the overall quality, validity, originality, and significance of the manuscript.
Maintain confidentiality, objectivity, and professionalism throughout the review process, avoiding personal criticism, inappropriate citation requests, or disclosure of confidential manuscript information.
Submit the completed review through the journal’s submission system within the agreed review period, ensuring the report is complete, accurate, and helpful to both the authors and the editor.

Conflict of Interest

A Conflict of Interest (COI) exists when a reviewer’s objectivity may be or may appear to be compromised by a personal, professional, or financial relationship. COI does not imply offence; it is a structural situation that must be managed transparently.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment or immediately upon becoming aware of one.
A conflict of interest exists when personal, professional, financial, academic, or institutional relationships could influence or reasonably appear to influence the reviewer’s impartiality.
Reviewers must decline the invitation if they have:

A close personal or family relationship with any author;
Co-authored publications with any author within the past three years;
Current employment or affiliation with the same institution as any author;
A direct academic or commercial competition with the authors on the same research topic;
A financial interest that could benefit from the publication or outcome of the study;
Prior access to the manuscript or an earlier version outside the journal’s review process;
A current or recent supervisor, student or mentor/mentee relationship with any author; or
A known personal dispute or other circumstance that may compromise objectivity.

If there is any uncertainty about whether a relationship constitutes a conflict of interest, reviewers should disclose it to the Editor, who will determine whether the review assignment may proceed.
COI should be declared through the OJS system or directly to the Editorial Office before accepting the invitation.
If a conflict is identified after accepting the invitation but before completing the review, reviewers must notify the editor immediately and withdraw from the assignment.
If a conflict becomes apparent during the review process, reviewers should stop reviewing the manuscript and promptly inform the Editorial Office.
Failure to disclose a known conflict of interest is considered a serious breach of publication ethics and may result in the review being disregarded, reconsideration of the editorial decision, and removal of the reviewer from the journal’s reviewer database, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and must adhere to the following requirements

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality and must not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with any third party without prior authorization from the journal.
Unpublished manuscript content must never be used for personal, academic, commercial, or research purposes before publication.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any confidential material to generative AI tools or other external platforms, as this may compromise confidentiality and intellectual property rights.
Reviews must be prepared personally by the invited reviewer and should not be generated or substantially drafted using artificial intelligence or delegated to others.
Reviewers must not request citations to their own work, a specific journal, or particular authors unless those citations are genuinely relevant and scientifically justified.
Reviewers must preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process by not revealing their identity or attempting to identify the authors. If the authors’ identities become apparent, the reviewer should inform the editor and disclose any resulting conflict of interest.
Reviews must be objective, impartial, and based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript, free from personal, institutional, financial, or competitive bias.
Reviewers must not intentionally delay, obstruct, or manipulate the review process for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.
Suspected research or publication misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate submission, image manipulation, or unethical human or animal research must be reported confidentially to the Editor with clear supporting evidence and should never be communicated directly to the authors.
Failure to comply with reviewer ethics, including breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, coercive citation practices, misuse of manuscript content, or other forms of reviewer misconduct, may result in the review being invalidated, removal from the journal’s reviewer database, and further action in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Artificial Intelligence (Ai) Policy

CMP’s AI policy for reviewers is aligned with the guidance from COPE. Peer review is a human responsibility, and reviewers remain fully accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of their evaluations.

Peer review must be conducted entirely by the invited reviewer. AI tools must not replace, generate, or substantially draft any part of the review report, recommendation, or scientific assessment.
Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript including text, tables, figures, supplementary files, or data to generative AI platforms or other third-party AI services, as this breaches confidentiality and the authors’ intellectual property rights.
AI must not be used to evaluate, score, summarize, rank, or identify methodological flaws in a manuscript, nor to determine the editorial recommendation.
Reviewers must not use AI or other tools to identify anonymous authors, as this compromises the integrity of the double-blind peer-review process.
Limited use of non-generative tools is permitted, including grammar and spelling checkers, reference management software, and conventional literature search databases, provided manuscript confidentiality is maintained.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their review, and must ensure that all comments, critiques, and recommendations reflect their own independent scientific judgment.
If reviewers suspect undisclosed AI-generated content in a manuscript, they should report their concerns confidentially to the Editor with supporting evidence and should not make such allegations in comments intended for the authors.
Any unauthorized use of AI that compromises confidentiality or violates this policy constitutes reviewer misconduct and may result in invalidation of the review, removal from the journal’s reviewer database, notification of the reviewer’s institution where appropriate, and other actions consistent with COPE recommendations.

Cope Ethical Guidelines

The following obligations are drawn directly from the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2017, updated 2022). All CMP reviewers must comply with these in full.

If suspected during peer review [COPE RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL]
If suspected after publication [COPE RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL]

Reviewers are expected to comply with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and uphold the highest standards of integrity throughout the peer-review process.

Accept review assignments only within your area of expertise and decline invitations if you cannot provide a competent evaluation.
Maintain strict confidentiality by not sharing, discussing, or using unpublished manuscript content for any purpose outside the review process.
Disclose all actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment or immediately upon becoming aware of one.
Provide objective, fair, and constructive feedback focused on the scientific quality of the manuscript, avoiding personal criticism or biased language.
Identify relevant published literature that has been overlooked where it is essential to improve the scholarly context of the manuscript, without engaging in coercive citation practices.
Report suspected research or publication ethics concerns such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, or unethical human or animal research confidentially to the Editor rather than to the authors.
Respond promptly to review invitations and complete accepted reviews within the agreed timeframe, requesting an extension if additional time is required.
Comply with the journal’s AI policy by preparing the review independently and refraining from using generative AI to produce or substantially draft review content.
Consult the Editor whenever uncertain about an ethical issue, including possible conflicts of interest or suspected publication misconduct, allowing the journal to follow the appropriate COPE guidance and procedures.

Reviewer Registration

Interested in joining our panel of reviewers?

Complete the Reviewer Registration Form to apply as a reviewer. Your application will be evaluated by the journal’s Editorial Office based on your academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and reviewing experience.

If your profile meets the journal’s requirements, you will be added to our reviewer database and may be invited to review manuscripts that match your area of expertise.

We welcome applications from qualified researchers, clinicians, and professionals committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly peer review.

Transparency and Website Information

All journal policies, guidelines, editorial information, APC details, and contact information are clearly displayed and regularly updated on the journal website.

Last updated on July 11, 2026.

Advance Journal of Business Management & Social Science