The GRWS International Journal of Applied Commerce and Strategic Management follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure academic quality, originality, methodological reliability, ethical integrity, and practical relevance of all manuscripts considered for publication.
Under the double-blind review model, the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. Authors are required to remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information from the manuscript submitted for review.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes initial screening regarding scope relevance, language quality, methodological adequacy, plagiarism/similarity concerns, and ethical compliance. Substantially non-compliant or out-of-scope papers may receive an immediate editorial desk rejection without external review.
Manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of competing interests. Author reviewer suggestions are advisory; final reviewer appointments remain entirely at the journal’s discretion.
Reviewers and authors remain mutually anonymous. Authors must submit a separate Title Page containing names, affiliations, funding, and disclosures, while keeping the main manuscript completely anonymised. While strict measures are maintained, absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed if self-citations or specialized dataset context indirectly reveals identity.
Verifies novelty, practical/theoretical significance, problem identification, and scholarly contribution.
Ensures alignment with scope, audience value, and importance of contemporary/emerging topics addressed.
Checks for balanced, up-to-date literature review, clear theoretical framework, and properly identified research gaps.
Evaluates research design, sampling clarity, analytical correctness, replicability, and acknowledged limitations.
Inspects accuracy of tables/figures, data-driven interpretations, and objective consideration of alternative outcomes.
Assesses practical/managerial implications, alignment with results, and avoidance of exaggerated claims.
Confirms ethical approvals, consent, conflict/funding disclosures, and absence of data fabrication or plagiarism.
Reviews logical structure, precise language, accurate reference formatting, and necessity of revision.
The Editor-in-Chief assesses reports independently. Majority recommendations may be overridden if valid ethical/academic reasons exist. Decisions are unbiased by author background, nationality, or affiliation.
Authors must return revised files along with point-by-point response tables and tracked-change documents. A revision request does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
Reviewers must not share, reproduce, contact authors directly, or retain manuscript files post-review.
Must decline if financial, supervisory, recent collaboration, or institutional conflicts exist.
Provide objective feedback, avoid hostile language, and never request self-citation for metrics boost.
Plagiarism, fabrication, or image manipulation flagged during review triggers formal ethics procedures. Manuscripts are held, institutional alerts may be issued, or submission bans enforced.
Uploading confidential manuscripts into public generative AI systems is strictly prohibited. AI cannot replace independent scholarly judgment. Factually unreliable AI reports will be discarded.
Inadequate, abusive, or citation-manipulating reviewers are removed. Peer review responsibility extends post-publication; substantive data or error concerns lead to retractions or corrections.
APC payment never guarantees publication. Full records of invitations, reports, decision logs, and conflict disclosures are securely archived confidentially.
While peer reviewers provide expert evaluations, final responsibility for editorial decisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and ethical integrity of their published work.