About the Journal
FOCUS AND SCOPE
The Jordan Journal of Business Administration (JJBA) is an international, double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal. The JJBA publishes interdisciplinary research which informs a range of business-related fields. The JJBA comes as a result of collaborative efforts between the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Deanship of Scientific Research, and The University of Jordan in response to the growing needs of the academic community in Jordan for a specialized business journal.
JJBA is dedicated to the advancement of knowledge in the various fields of business disciplines, covering, but not limited to, the following domains:
• Business Administration
• Public Management
• Marketing• Hotel Management •Management of Information Systems
• Hospital Management•Supply Chain Management
JJBA is bi-lingual publishing articles in both Arabic and English. Nevertheless, English abstracts are provided for all published articles.
|Open Submissions||Indexed||Peer Reviewed|
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The JJBA peer-review process is summarized in the following steps:
1. Submission of Paper: The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as Scholar-One Manuscripts. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.
2. Editorial Office Assessment: The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and Editorial Board Members: The EIC distribute the submitted articles according to the subject matter to those editorials members who are most versed in these matters. The EIC and the member of the board check that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Invitation to Reviewers: The Chief –Editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would serve as appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly two.
5. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
6. Review is Conducted: Generally, the process of peer review involves an exchange between a Chief -Editor and a team of reviewers, also known as referees. After the referees receive a paper from the editor, they read it closely and provide individual critiques, usually within four weeks.
In their critiques, they:
• Comment on the validity of the science, identifying scientific errors and evaluating the design and methodology used.
• Judge the significance by evaluating the importance of the findings.
• Determine the originality of the work based on how much it advances the field. Reviewers also identify missing or inaccurate references.
• Recommend that the paper be published or rejected. Editors do not have to heed this recommendation, but most do.
The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The Chief Editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. In case of contradictory results of the review process, the editor may ask another reviewer for his\her opinion.
8. The Decision is Communicated:The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
9. Final Step: If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
GUIDELINES FOR REVIWERS
Jordan Journal of Business Administration (JJBA) relies on members of the scientific research community to assess the validity of articles under consideration through peer review. The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of the manuscript under review, and of the material that is eventually published. Conscientious peer review is a time-consuming task but is essential to assure the quality of scientific journals. Jordan Journal of Business Administration is very grateful for the time and effort you invest in the review process.
The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.
Please consider the following:
ü Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternate reviewer.
ü Do you have time to review the paper?
Finished reviews of an article should be completed within four weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
ü Are there any potential conflicts of interests?
While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.
When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:
(1) Content Quality and Originality: Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
(2) Organization and Clarity
§ Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
§ Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
§ Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
§ Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
§ Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
§ Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
§ Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?
§ Scope - Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
• All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party.
§ Ethical Issues:
- Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
- Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
Final Steps: Please complete the “Reviewer’s Comments” form by the due date and send it to the receiving editorial office. Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated. When writing comments, please indicate the section of comments intended for only the editors and the section of comments that can be returned to the author(s). Please never hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office with any questions or concerns you may have.
The Journal publishes four issues per year, one number per season, three issues in Arabic and one issue in English.
OPEN ACCESS POLICY
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
MALPRACTICE AND ETHICS STATEMENT
• JJBA is committed to publishing original high quality scholarly research papers that provide solid insights into all aspects of Business.
JJBA follows COPE publishing ethic roles: https://publicationethics.org/
• As a scientific refereed journal, JJBA follows a standard process of a stringent double-blind review process. Significant guidelines are provided to reviewers so as to ensure high value and original publications.
• A JJBA Transfer of Copyright form stipulates that each author must sign to acknowledge that the paper is original, is not submitted elsewhere, and does not include copyrighted elements.
• In case of plagiarism, misuse of published articles, and/or illegal distribution of research papers are proven, JJBA is very aggressive in the legal actions it takes so as to prevent such unethical action.
• All manuscripts submitted for publication to (JJBA) are cross-checked for plagiarism using Turnitin/ iThenticate software. Manuscripts found to be plagiarized during initial stages of review are out-rightly rejected and not considered for publication in the journal. In case a manuscript is found to be plagiarized after publication, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct preliminary investigation, may be with the help of a suitable committee constituted for the purpose. If the manuscript is found to be plagiarized beyond the acceptable limits, the journal will contact the author’s Institute / College / University and Funding Agency, if any.
• JJBA is obliged to correct and publish as soon as possible any genuine errors in published work pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid. The online version of the paper will be corrected with a date of correction and a link to the printed erratum will be provided. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper will be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction.
Duties of Editors
• Determine whether a submitted manuscript is appropriate and within the scope of the Journal.
• Select expert reviewers (i.e., referees) and an area editor to evaluate the submitted manuscript.
• Render a final editorial decision on each manuscript based on journal priorities, other similar manuscripts in process and related considerations.
• Communicate directly with the author and the review team.
• Schedule accepted manuscripts for publication.
• Balance workloads for the area editors and reviewers.
• Resolve any conflicts.
Fair Play: The editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality: The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations: The editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.
Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review.
Originality and plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Duties of the Editorial Board
Editorial boards are essential and valuable resource for journals because they make sure that journals are published with integrity and accuracy. These boards often include the publisher, editor-in-chief, assistant editor, advertising editor and department editors. The editorial boards are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.