Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Local Impact and Knowledge Transfer (JLINK) undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. Manuscripts evaluated by the editors as falling outside the journal's scope or failing to meet basic criteria are rejected immediately without external review.

Manuscripts that are deemed potentially interesting and relevant to our readership are forwarded for a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process, ensuring that both the reviewer and author identities remain completely anonymous. Following the review, the editor renders a formal decision based on the reviewers' evaluations and recommendations, choosing from the following outcomes:

  • Rejected

  • Major Revision

  • Minor Revision

  • Accepted

The JLINK Editorial Board retains the final authority to decide which of the submitted manuscripts will be processed for publication.

Publication Criteria

To be considered for publication in Journal of Local Impact and Knowledge Transfer (JLINK), a manuscript must meet the following general criteria:

  1. Originality: Submitted articles must be original works and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

  2. Scope Realignment: The manuscript must present empirical research, case studies, or comprehensive literature reviews within the fields of applied management and business.

  3. Scientific Contribution: In general, to be accepted, the paper should represent a distinct advancement in understanding that is likely to influence thinking in its respective field. There must be a clear rationale demonstrating why the work warrants public visibility within JLINK.

Editorial and Review Workflow

The comprehensive review workflow at JLINK is structured as follows:

  1. Manuscript Submission: The author submits the full manuscript through the JLINK Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

  2. Initial Editorial Evaluation (Desk Review): The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors assess the manuscript for structural formatting, thematic alignment, and plagiarism levels to determine whether it should proceed to peer review or be desk-rejected.

  3. Double-Blind Review Process: The manuscript is objectively evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant domain.

  4. Editorial Decision: The editor consolidates the reviewers' feedback and issues the official status of the manuscript.

  5. Author Notification and Confirmation: The decision and detailed review notes are communicated to the author, outlining any necessary revisions required before the manuscript can advance to typesetting and final publication.