Peer Review and Publication Policy


 Peer Review Policy  | Open Access Policy |  Copyright Policy  | Plagiarism Policy | Correction and Retraction Policy

Peer Review Policy

We are transparent in our reviewing process. A double blind peer review process is applicable for our journal and the author is informed about the status of their contribution whether accepted or sent back to them for improvements

  • Step – 1: Once the articles are received from the author, there is an initial screening done in order to check the paper’s theme.
  • Step – 2: The paper is reviewed by the Subject Matter Expert and the Editorial review members.
  • Step – 3: Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the managing editor decides whether a paper
  • Can be accepted
  • Accepted subject to change
  • Subject to re-submission with significant changes
  • Rejected
  • For papers which has been suggested to modify, the same reviewers will be assessing the resubmitted paper in order to ensure the suggestions are accepted and the paper is revised
  • If the paper is accepted by the reviewers, author(s) will be notified by acceptance letter. Author/Corresponding Author will be notified about the possible date of publication. The entire process takes a maximum of 1-3 months

Open Access Policy

    IJCMS is aimed at providing high quality research articles to the academic community without any cost. This journal provides immediate open access to its content for making it one of the largest open source available to the research community in arts, humanities and social science sector. However the author whose article is accepted, need to pay the specified amount in order to cover the peer-reviewing cost, editorial and processing fees

Copyright Policy

      IJCMS hold copyrights for the articles including abstracts published in the journal as accepted by the author in full consent in order to ensure full copyright protection and to disseminate the journal internationally

Plagiarism  Policy

        We check for plagiarism by ithenticate and never tolerate plagiarism, forged data, and falsified data presentation from authors who will be blacklisted from publishing articles in IJCMS and its group of journals. We strictly follow norms of UGC  PROMOTION OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PREVENTION OF PLAGIARISM IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS) REGULATIONS, 2018.

Correction &  Retraction Policy

Article withdrawal
Authors are free to withdraw articles or their publications from being published from our journal group through written statement duly signed by author(s) before it is published online or being allotted with Volume, Issue numbers, DOI and article ID. If an article is withdrawn by us in the events such as, but not limited to, multiple submission, fraudulent use of data, bogus claim of authorship, unreliable findings and unethical research practices, ERM publication group is not bound to inform the author(s) on the reason for withdrawal. Any such withdrawn articles are removed from the online databases in all formats irrespective of the citation or impact factor. Instead, a short note will be displayed stating that the article has been withdrawn.
As a responsible journal publishing group, we take utmost care to ensure the published works are error-free. However if there are any unintentional errors found by the readers, journal group is ready to publish the refutations from the readers only after being checked and peer-reviewed for the prominent evidence that claims that there is a major error in the original paper. Though criticisms will not be discussed with the authors, the editor-in-chief is the final decision authority to approve or reject a refutation from publishing. ERM group of journals is open to receive such corrections to all the types of articles published except research highlights.
Significant typographical errors, units, data, errors in figures-table numbers, legends, proofing errors and errors that are not inclusive of editing sections are published with the information on the article. However negligible errors are not published but not in the case of apparent simple errors that are significant. The decision of editor-in-chief is final.
Corrigenda submitted by the original authors are published if the scientific accuracy or re-producibility of the original paper is compromised. Post publication of the papers if the authors found errors that are unavoidable, they can contact the editor-in-chief with the required information. Readers who find such errors are requested to write ‘Letter to the editor’ stating the complete information such as article title, name of the authors, volume, issue, page number, section head and the error with the correction. The decision of editor-in-chief is final though most corrigenda are approved by the editors and peer-reviewers provided there is a justification.
After peer-reviewing, addenda are added if the editors feel that the additional information is required mandatorily so that the readers can easily understand. This is usually in response to readers' request for clarification. Addenda are rarely published with the omitted information significant for the understanding of the manuscript.
Article retractions
The editor-in-chief when receives a request from a third party or from the author(s) to retract their article because of the scientific misconduct or outdated information such as the main conclusion of the paper being outdated, the same will be thoroughly analyzed with neutral editors, peer-reviewers, all the authors and institutions. Once found with eligible and reliable information about the misconduct/outdated information, the editor-in-chief decides the article to be retracted either in partial or in-full prior to which the author(s) are requested an explanation/justification though this doesn’t affect the decision. This is followed by informing the readers about the article retraction with the note stating that the article has been retracted. If one or more author(s) do not want their article to be retracted, they may send ‘Letter to the editor’ stating the corrections/justifications carried out with Statement of Proof. Final decision on the retracted articles is with Editor-in-Chief.
Article removal
Though removing an article occurs during rare instances, this is mandated if the journal article clearly has defamatory content, copyright or any such legal issues etc., In such circumstances, though the article is removed with a note that ‘article has been removed for legal reasons, the bibliographic information (title and authors) are retained and unchanged. Final decision on the removed articles is with Editor-in-Chief.
Article replacement
As mentioned in the article retraction, if author(s) respond to Editor-in-Chief with the false/inaccurate/misguided information/plagiarized content along with the corrections carried out by them, the editor-in-chief may consider to replace the article from its online version.
Supplementary information
Rare case of authors' corrections to Supplementary Information (SI) are published only if it makes much difference to the article results such as (major errors that compromise the conclusion of the study). Authors have no option to update or change the SI during or after a publication since it is a part of publication unless a change made for technical reasons

Instructions to Reviewers

What is peer-reviewing?

A collaborative process, also known as refereeing, in which the manuscripts submitted to a journal article are commented after being critically evaluated for its concept, novelty, content and contribution to the research, by the research experts in the same field. The critical evaluation is accompanied with constructive feedback from the reviewers so as to improve the manuscript quality. Being a peer reviewer, it is a known fact that criticism does fall under your comments and feedback.

Responsibilities and accountability

A peer reviewer holds responsibility for the critical analysis of a manuscript in their specialty. One should provide honest, constructive, careful, justified and positive feedback to the authors since the peer reviewer’s role is not to criticize, but to enhance the research quality. The peer reviewer must pinpoint the strengths, weaknesses, areas that could be improved, errors and must take responsibility in justifying their feedback without losing patience when authors respond in a negative tone. Being the guardian of the high quality research, the peer reviewer must ensure the trustworthiness and confidentiality of the articles being peer reviewed by them.

Contribution of a peer reviewer to the journal

  • Improving the quality of the paper published thus increasing the research quality
  • Enhancing the journal standards among the publishers
  • Self learning of the updates and the research conducted in their respective fields

 Points to note prior to start the review process (Do’s)

  • Knowledge in the specific area: Are you well versed in the theme in which the research was conducted? If yes, please inform the Editor-in-chief prior to starting the review process.
  • Availability of timing: Have sufficient time to review the article?
  • Conflicts of interest: Do you have any conflict of interest with the article? If yes, please inform the Editor-in-chief prior to starting the review process
  • Originality of the paper: The concept developed by the author(s) need to be original, not published earlier and must be contributing to the research community. If in case, if the paper submitted has a concept which is much similar to an already published paper, cite the same in the report and immediately inform the editor-in-chief
  • Compliance on Plagiarism-free research: The manuscript submitted must be plagiarism-free and if found plagiarism more than 10-15%, then it must be informed to the editor-in-chief prior to starting the review
  • Recommendation to editor-in-chief to reject articles: If the article aims at creating potential danger to mankind or articles that campaign against the welfare of mankind or articles that create hatred or hate speech against gender, country, religion, group, language, caste, practices and faith, such articles to be recommended to editor-in-chief to be rejected
  • Alignment of manuscript theme with journal’s theme: The peer reviewer much check whether the submitted manuscript falls under the major themes listed under the ‘scope of the journal’
  • Contribution of the manuscript to future research in specific area: Any research, submitted as manuscript, must contribute to the specific research arena and ensure the future researchers are guided to investigate further in the specific area
  • Completeness of the manuscript: The peer reviewer must consider whether all the sections are complete or left in the middle prior to starting the review
  • Language: The peer reviewer must ensure the language is of high standards and does not contain absurd errors
  • Formatting and referencing of the manuscript: The peer reviewer must check whether the manuscript is neatly formatted as per the journal instructions and all the references are cited properly

 Points to note, not to be followed in peer reviewing process (Don’ts)

  • Phrases such as “fatal flaws” or “serious mistakes” or “I don’t think this paper has credible work” can be used in a constructive manner such as “major concerns”, “To my opinion, the paper needs to be revamped majorly to refine the conducted research”
  • Personal attacks or any attacks based on gender, country, religion etc. such as “Why you have conducted such study in a country like xxx, that has no xyz?”
  • Showing partiality or forcing the author to implement only the points/content what you suggested and rejecting author’s views
  • Rejecting the author’s counter-comments without any justification or ignoring it
  • Delaying the review process during resubmission, only to degrade the author’s interest
  • Accepting a paper review, only to gain knowledge about the article and reprise it at another place in the name of own. This leads to legal proceedings upon the reviewer
  • Sharing the article’s knowledge or content with colleagues or any other people without informing the editor-in-chief
  • Introducing new and blatant errors to justify the criticism made upon the paper
  • Contacting the author (if in case, the author’s contact details are known) and deviating the guidelines said here, in any manner and in any form 

 How to write the peer review report?

The peer reviewer should note down all the points in a collative manner and submit the same to the editor-in-chief. The report sent to the author must be constructive and justified with evidences in the positive tone without criticism. After completing the report, the peer reviewer must analyze whether the report addresses all the important points mentioned below;

S. No




Article type

(Original article, review article, case study, editorial review etc.,)

Word count

Whether the article meets / exceeds or recedes the word count specification of the journal. If not met, whether the author(s) is suggested to increase/decrease the word count?


Whether the title correctly conveys the essence of the paper and meeting the title word count requirements


Whether the abstract is complete and summarizes the entire paper within the said word count


Whether the author(s) provided minimum to maximum number of keywords


Whether it conveys the background, setting, purpose and objective of the research

Literature review

Whether it is precise, informative, cites only recent articles (not less than five years), presents the research gap and properly developed

Methodology / Materials and Methods

  • Whether listed out each and every component with justification?
  • In case of medical research, whether consent is obtained and ethics committee approved the work


Whether the research results are properly tabulated and illustrated through graphs with correct calculations



Whether the manuscript answers the research question(s) and concludes it properly with proper justification


Limitations / Recommendations

Whether the study limitations are provided with recommendations for future studies


Tables, Figures, Images

Whether all the tables, figures, images are properly cited with source, cited in-text, cited with permission etc.,



Whether the content is plagiarism-free or the plagiarism is within the limits


Conflict of interest

Whether the authors have no conflict of interest


Contribution of authors

Whether the authors’ contributions are present with required information [for example, author x provided concept, author y collected data and author z helped in data analysis (or) all the authors contributed equally]


Acknowledgement and study sponsors

Whether the authors have acknowledged or cited the study sponsors


Comments suitable for transmission to the authors

Whether the comments provided inside the paper are clear, suitable and justified



Whether the manuscript needed language editing


Supplementary Materials

Whether the author need to submit the supplementary materials (such as interview transcripts or data in excel sheet or permission requests) if any during resubmission


Publication Ethics


Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies is double blind peer reviewed journal. It is necessary to agree upon standards of ethical behaviour for all stakeholders involved in the publishing i.e. the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. The ethics statements are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practices Guidelines for Journal Editors.


Decision on the Publication of Article
The Chief Editor and the Associate Editor responsible for deciding which of the articles accepted for publication after undergoing double blind peer review should be published. The Chief Editor and the Associate Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
An Editor shall evaluate the manuscript(s) solely on their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.


The Chief Editor, the Associate Editor 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.


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.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the Chief Editor and the Associate Editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.

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 Chief Editor and the Associate Editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Chief Editor/Associate 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:
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

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. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple Publications
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Duplicate Submission
Manuscripts that are found to have been published elsewhere, or to be under review elsewhere, will incur duplicate submission/publication sanctions. If authors have used their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they are required to cite the previous work and indicate how their submitted manuscript offers novel contributions beyond those of the previous work.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

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.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Acknowledgment of Funding Sources
Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should be duly acknowledged at the end of the article.

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 Chief Editor/Associate Editor and cooperate with the editors to retract or correct the paper.