Peer Review Process

Scientific Lens: Journal of Management and Resources (Lensa Ilmiah: Jurnal Manajemen dan Sumberdaya) applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, validity, relevance, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts considered for publication.

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. The editorial and peer-review process consists of the following stages:

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the Scientific Lens Online Journal System (OJS). Authors are responsible for ensuring that the submitted manuscript complies with the journal's Aims & Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript template, publication ethics, Generative AI Policy, and other submission requirements.

Submission to Scientific Lens implies that the manuscript is original, has not been previously published, is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal, and has been approved by all listed authors.

2. Administrative and Technical Check

The editorial team conducts an initial administrative and technical examination to ensure the completeness and conformity of the submission.

The examination may include:

completeness of manuscript files and metadata;
conformity with the journal template and formatting requirements;
completeness and consistency of authorship information;
availability of required declarations;
structure and organization of the manuscript;
completeness and consistency of references and citations; and
compliance with other technical submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction before proceeding to editorial assessment.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Manuscripts that pass the administrative check undergo an initial editorial screening by the Editor.

This stage determines whether the manuscript is sufficiently relevant, scientifically sound, and potentially valuable to proceed to external peer review.

The screening includes an assessment of:

conformity with the Aims & Scope of Scientific Lens;
relevance and significance of the research problem;
originality and potential scholarly contribution;
clarity of research objectives, questions, or hypotheses;
adequacy of theoretical or conceptual foundations;
appropriateness of the research design and methodology;
consistency between research objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions;
adequacy and currency of scholarly references;
compliance with research and publication ethics; and
overall academic quality and readiness for peer review.

The Editor also conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's internal and external validity, where relevant to the research design.

Internal validity screening considers whether the research design, variables or phenomena investigated, sampling or participant selection, instruments, data collection procedures, analytical techniques, and interpretation of findings provide an adequate basis for the conclusions presented.

External validity screening considers whether the authors appropriately define the research context, population, organizational or socioeconomic setting, limitations, and boundaries within which the findings may reasonably be interpreted or generalized.

For qualitative, case-based, conceptual, or other research designs where conventional validity terminology may not be directly applicable, the Editor considers corresponding principles of credibility, methodological coherence, transparency, transferability, and appropriateness of claims.

This initial assessment does not replace the more detailed scientific and methodological evaluation conducted by peer reviewers.

Manuscripts with fundamental problems concerning scope, originality, methodological validity, ethical compliance, theoretical grounding, or scholarly contribution may be rejected at this stage without external peer review (desk rejection).

4. Similarity and Research Integrity Screening

Manuscripts considered suitable after initial editorial screening may undergo similarity and research-integrity screening.

The editorial team may examine indications of:

plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap;
duplicate or redundant publication;
inappropriate citation practices;
fabricated or unverifiable references;
data fabrication or falsification;
inappropriate image or data manipulation;
authorship concerns;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
inappropriate or undisclosed use of Generative AI; and
other potential violations of research or publication ethics.

A similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for editorial decisions. The Editor evaluates the nature, location, extent, and context of identified similarities before determining whether clarification, revision, rejection, or another editorial action is appropriate.

Likewise, automated AI-detection scores are not treated as standalone evidence of misconduct.

5. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject and/or methodological expertise.

Reviewer selection considers:

expertise relevant to the manuscript;
methodological competence;
independence and objectivity;
absence of conflicts of interest; and
ability to provide a constructive and timely scholarly assessment.

Scientific Lens applies a double-blind peer review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

6. Peer Review

Reviewers critically and independently evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript.

The assessment generally covers:

relevance to the journal's scope;
originality and significance of the research;
clarity and importance of the research problem;
adequacy of theoretical or conceptual foundations;
appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
validity and reliability of instruments and procedures, where applicable;
adequacy of sampling and data collection;
appropriateness of analytical methods;
internal and external validity or corresponding quality criteria;
accuracy and clarity of results;
depth and quality of discussion;
relationship between findings and relevant theories or previous research;
consistency between findings and conclusions;
theoretical, managerial, economic, business, policy, or practical implications;
limitations of the study;
quality, relevance, and currency of references; and
compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, evidence-based, and academically reasoned comments that assist the Editor in making an editorial decision and help authors improve the scholarly quality of their manuscripts.

7. Reviewer Recommendation

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept Submission;
Revisions Required / Minor Revision;
Resubmit for Review / Major Revision; or
Decline Submission.

Reviewer recommendations provide an important basis for editorial consideration but do not constitute the final publication decision.

8. Editorial Decision

The Editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's overall scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and potential scholarly contribution.

The editorial decision may be:

Accepted;
Minor Revision;
Major Revision; or
Rejected.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor does not determine the outcome merely by counting reviewer recommendations. The Editor assesses the substance and scientific justification of each review.

Where necessary, the Editor may:

conduct an additional editorial assessment;
request clarification from the reviewers;
consult another member of the Editorial Board; or
appoint an additional independent reviewer.

The Editor-in-Chief and/or responsible Editor retains final authority over all editorial decisions.

9. Author Revision

When revision is requested, authors must carefully address the comments and recommendations provided by the Editor and reviewers.

Authors are generally required to submit:

a revised manuscript; and
a detailed Response to Reviewers, explaining how each comment has been addressed.

For each reviewer comment, authors should indicate the corresponding revision made in the manuscript. When authors choose not to follow a particular recommendation, they must provide a clear and academically justified explanation.

Authors should not merely state that a revision has been made; the response should allow the Editor and reviewers to identify what was changed, where it was changed, and how the revision addresses the concern raised.

Failure to adequately address substantial scientific or methodological concerns may result in further revision or rejection.

10. Re-Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript

Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised during the previous evaluation.

For minor revisions, the responsible Editor may evaluate the revised manuscript directly when the requested changes do not require further independent scientific assessment.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for another round of evaluation. An additional reviewer may also be appointed when new methodological or substantive issues require further expertise.

A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

11. Final Editorial Evaluation

Before a manuscript is accepted, the Editor conducts a final evaluation to ensure that:

substantive reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed;
the manuscript remains consistent with the journal's Aims & Scope;
methodological and analytical issues have been adequately resolved;
conclusions are supported by the findings;
claims and implications are proportional to the evidence;
study limitations are appropriately acknowledged;
references and citations are appropriate and verifiable;
ethical and disclosure requirements have been fulfilled; and
the manuscript has reached an acceptable scholarly standard for publication.

The Editor may request additional clarification or correction if unresolved scientific, ethical, or technical issues remain.

12. Acceptance and Production

Once the manuscript has successfully completed the editorial and peer-review process, the Editor issues the final acceptance decision.

The accepted manuscript then proceeds to the production stage, which may include:

copyediting;
language and consistency checking;
reference and metadata verification;
layout and typesetting;
author proofreading; and
final publication.

Acceptance does not exempt a manuscript from corrections identified during production. Authors are responsible for carefully checking the final proof and promptly reporting necessary corrections before publication.

Editorial Principles

Throughout the editorial and peer-review process, Scientific Lens: Journal of Management and Resources is committed to the principles of fairness, confidentiality, editorial independence, transparency, research integrity, scholarly accountability, and freedom from conflicts of interest.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's:

scientific quality;
originality;
methodological rigor;
validity and credibility;
relevance to the journal's Aims & Scope;
ethical compliance; and
theoretical, empirical, managerial, economic, business, policy, or practical contribution.

Decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, academic position, personal background, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly merit of the manuscript.

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Unpublished information obtained through the editorial or peer-review process must not be used for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.

The use of Generative AI by editors and reviewers is governed by the journal's Generative AI Policy, particularly regarding confidentiality, human accountability, data protection, and the prohibition against delegating scientific judgment or editorial decisions to AI systems.

Peer Review Model

Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review
Number of Reviewers: At least two independent reviewers
Initial Editorial Screening: Mandatory before external peer review
Research Integrity Screening: Conducted as required
Revision: Minor or Major Revision based on scientific assessment
Final Decision: Editor-in-Chief and/or responsible Editor
Primary Review Criteria: Scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, validity, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal's scope, and scholarly contribution