Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

SEAJSM Southeast Asian Journal of Service Management (SEAJSM) is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal published triannually (March, July, November) by the Faculty of Business and Economics, Universitas Surabaya.

1. Review Model

SEAJSM uses a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process: reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff know both identities and manage the process to ensure fairness, confidentiality, and integrity.

2. Peer Review Workflow

All submissions that pass editorial desk screening proceed through the following stages:

  1. Editorial desk screening — the Managing Editor checks scope fit, completeness of the submission (title, abstract, keywords, full text, declarations), adherence to the Author Guidelines, and basic quality standards.
  2. Similarity screening — the manuscript is screened with Turnitin for plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Manuscripts with a similarity score exceeding the journal’s threshold may be returned to the authors or rejected.
  3. Reviewer assignment — suitable reviewers are selected from the journal’s reviewer database on the basis of subject-matter expertise. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.
  4. Peer review — reviewers assess the manuscript against the review criteria below and submit a structured evaluation with recommendations.
  5. Editorial decision — based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations, the Section Editor recommends a decision and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.
  6. Revision rounds — if revisions are required, authors revise the manuscript and submit a point-by-point response. Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed.
  7. Acceptance and production — accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading.
  8. Publication — the final version is published online with a DOI and a full-text PDF galley.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria:

  • Novelty and contribution: originality of the study, the significance of the research gap addressed, and the contribution to service management knowledge.
  • Methodological rigor: appropriateness of the research design, sampling, instruments, and analysis for the stated objectives.
  • Clarity of findings: whether results are reported clearly, completely, and consistently.
  • Depth of discussion: quality and depth of interpretation, including explicit comparison with prior studies.
  • Relevance to the journal scope: fit with SEAJSM’s focus on service management in Southeast Asian and global contexts.

4. Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript and an active publication track record in the field. Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review within the allocated time, must notify the editor and withdraw from the process.

5. Time Limits

  • Editorial desk screening: within 2 weeks of submission.
  • Peer review: 4–6 weeks from reviewer acceptance.
  • First editorial decision: within 10 weeks of submission.

6. Similarity Screening

All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and self-plagiarism using Turnitin, supplemented by Google-based search tools. The acceptable similarity threshold is at most 20%, excluding references. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold are returned to the authors for revision or rejected, in accordance with the Plagiarism and Academic Integrity Policy.

7. Editorial Decisions

The possible decisions are: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, and Reject. The Editor-in-Chief holds final decision authority, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript’s merit, and the journal’s scope and standards.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers are prohibited from using AI tools to analyze or assess manuscripts, to draft review reports, or to upload any part of a manuscript into AI tools. Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. Authors, editors, and reviewers must comply with the journal’s Artificial Intelligence Policy.

9. Ethical Standards

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the COPE Guidelines on Peer Review and the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, disclose any conflicts of interest, and report suspected misconduct to the editor.