Editor Guidelines

Journal of Performance Management

Published by the Association for Management Information in Financial Services (AMIfs)

Field of Research: 3502 – Management Science & Information Systems

1. Editorial Responsibility

Editors are responsible for maintaining the academic integrity, quality, and ethical standards of the journal. Editorial decisions must be based solely on:

• Academic merit

• Originality

• Methodological rigor

• Relevance to the journal’s scope

• Contribution to knowledge

Editors must ensure fair, unbiased, and timely peer review.

2. Initial Screening

Upon submission, the handling editor should:

• Verify alignment with journal scope

• Check formatting compliance

• Conduct plagiarism screening

• Assess originality and significance

• Evaluate ethical compliance

Manuscripts failing to meet minimum standards may be desk-rejected with clear justification.

3. Peer Review Management

• Assign at least two independent reviewers with subject expertise.

• Ensure double-blind review integrity.

• Monitor review timelines (4–6 weeks).

• Assess reviewer comments objectively.

Editors may request additional reviews if reports conflict significantly.

4. Decision Making

Possible decisions include:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

Editors must provide constructive feedback and clear reasoning for all decisions.

5. Ethical Standards

Editors must:

• Maintain confidentiality of submissions

• Avoid conflicts of interest

• Recuse themselves when necessary

• Address allegations of misconduct

• Follow international publication ethics standards

Plagiarism, data fabrication, and unethical research practices must be investigated promptly.

6. Special Issues

For special issues:

• Appoint Guest Editors (if applicable)

• Ensure equal peer-review rigor

• Avoid favoritism or bias

• Maintain journal quality standards

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential documents. Editors must not:

• Share submissions externally

• Use unpublished material for personal research

• Disclose author identity in double-blind review

Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Performance Management relies on expert reviewers to maintain high academic standards. Reviewers play a critical role in improving manuscript quality.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

• Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations

• Maintain confidentiality

• Declare conflicts of interest

• Notify the editor if unable to review

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate:

A. Originality & Contribution

• Is the research novel?

• Does it add value to performance management literature?

B. Theoretical Framework

• Is the literature review comprehensive?

• Is the conceptual foundation sound?

C. Methodology

• Is the research design appropriate?

• Are data collection and analysis rigorous?

D. Results & Interpretation

• Are findings clearly presented?

• Are conclusions supported by evidence?

E. Practical Implications

• Does the study offer managerial or policy relevance?

F. Presentation Quality

• Clarity of writing

• Logical structure

• APA referencing accuracy

3. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers should recommend one of the following:

• Accept

• Minor Revisions

• Major Revisions

• Reject

Detailed comments should be provided for both authors and editors.

4. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must:

• Avoid using unpublished data for personal advantage

• Report suspected plagiarism or misconduct

• Maintain strict confidentiality

• Avoid personal criticism

5. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to:

• Accept or decline invitation within 3–5 days

• Submit review within 2–4 weeks

If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the editorial office.

6. Recognition

The journal acknowledges reviewer contributions annually and may issue:

• Reviewer Certificates

• Recognition Letters

• Outstanding Reviewer Awards