Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Innovations in Business and Industry will have to go through a selection process before they’re published in the journal.
The Editors reserve the right to decline the submitted manuscript without review, if the studies reported are not sufficiently novel or important to merit publication in the journal. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable (insufficient originality or of limited interest to the target audience) are returned to the author(s) without review. The selection process includes an initial screening to check conformity to style guidelines and the journal’s scope. The Editor cuould seeks advice from experts in the appropriate field.
In the second step strict double-blind peer-review process will be done by reviewers. Research articles are refereed by a minimum of two reviewers external to the editorial board. The final selection of reviewers is exclusively the Editor’s decision.
Selection of reviewers as well as instruction for reviewers are given, and also we advise our reviewers to strictly follow COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.
The Editorial Board members have full authority to determine whether a manuscript meets the editorial and scientific criteria to be accepted for publication or not. The final decision of acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The outcome decision of the meeting is final and will not be overturned.
The corresponding author of the manuscript will be informed of the final decision of the journal through e-mail after this process is complete.
Meanwhile, authors can track the current status of their manuscript after signing in to their accounts on the journal’s website. In case of needing assistance or having any questions, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office at jibi @ aspur.rs

Type of peer review - Double anonymous peer review
Submitted manuscripts are peer-reviewed by double anonymous peer review by a minimum of two reviewers external to the editorial board (and the Editorial Board) of Journal of Innovations in Business and Industry before acceptance for publication.

Expertise required for reviewers
The journal establishes what types of expertise are needed for the paper. Often a reviewer is expected to comment on the full manuscript, but we also want input by specialists on specific aspects (e.g. statistics, data, methodology, population or setting). A multi- or trandisciplinary study might require reviewers from different disciplines. Also we are checking potential reviewers' h factor, ORCID as well as we provide detailed insight in the reference list.

Diversity and inclusion
In selection of reviewers we consider gender, geographical and cultural background, and career stage (e.g. inclusion of early career researchers) of potential reviewers to diversify our pool and possibly get perspectives you would have missed otherwise.

Search for reviewers
We look for experts for all the areas of expertise and backgrounds identified. Potential sources include: our reviewer pool, the paper’s reference list, databases such as SCOPUS, ResearchGate, Clarivate, Google Scholar or Publons, speakers at relevant conferences, as well as distinguished scholars. We always select more people than you need because several may decline to review.
Reviewers can not be members of journal’s editorial staff.
The Journal will double-check for possible conflicts of interest. These can include:

• Publishing recently (typically within the last three years) with the author, or other recent work with the author.
• Work within the same research group or institution as the author (within the last three years, typically). An exception to this is if the author has worked with a potential reviewer on a collaborative project (e.g. DARPA or EU), or if the author and potential reviewer have co-organized or co-chaired a conference or event.
• Any history of supervising the author’s work, or if the author has supervised the reviewer’s work.
• If any personal (or professional) benefit may result from being a reviewer, or any indirect or direct financial interest in the manuscript that is being reviewed.
• Any personal relationship, including close friendship, etc.

Invitation to review
You will receive an email invitation from the journal that includes the manuscript and the Manuscript Review Form. In addition to your availability, please consider whether the topic of this work is within your field of expertise. Please let us know if you are accepting or declining our invitation to review as soon as possible, to minimise delay for the authors. If you are unable to review, we would be grateful if you would suggest an alternative referee.

Before agreeing to review
We usually ask our reviewers to submit their comments within 30 to 45 days of agreeing to review a paper, although extensions can be granted (for additional 15 days). Reviewer has option to Indicate whether he is willing to review the paper again if the author(s) re-submit(s). In the case of minor or major revision reviewers will get 15 to 30 days for additional round. If potential reviewer does not have time to review the article, please let the editorial office know. Suggestions for alternative reviewers are always welcome.

Reviewing a paper
As a reviewer, it is important that you remain objective in your critical appraisal. You should not allow your personal prejudice about research topics or researchers to influence your judgment. Your comments should be professional and courteous, and should help the author to improve their paper and present their research as clearly and concisely as possible.
If you have reasons to believe that the material is not original or has been plagiarised, please alert the editorial office. All submissions are checked for plagiarism by using specialized software iThenticate and Plagiarism X plagiarism scaner. Reveiewers will also receive the similarity report as well as report of possible usage of AI tools for asigned papers.
When reviewing a paper, you should take into consideration the following:
Originality and quality: Is the paper of sufficient interest for publication in the journal? Does it contribute significantly to the current state of the research field? Is the topic handled substantively and accurately in appropriate detail and scope?
Structure: abstract, introduction, method, results, conclusion.
Engagement with previous research and results (e.g. does the author engage with current/ relevant research in the field).
If a paper is difficult to understand due to grammatical errors, please mention this in your report.

Submitting your report
Please submit your report by using our online submission system. If you have any troubles using our submission system please contact us on jibi @ aspur.rs
If you need any other assistance, please contact the editorial office.

Becoming a Reviewer
If interested in reviewing, please send a letter of interest and curriculum vitae along with “key words,” phrases, or topics that you would be interested in reviewing.
You can also email the editorial office if you would like to recommend a colleague who specializes in the field as an additional reviewer.

Thanks to our reviewers
Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process. It ensures that published research is sound and properly verified and improves the quality of the research.
Reviewers for the Journal are selected by the handling editors based on their expertise. Experts volunteer their time and effort to provide scientific critiques of manuscripts submitted to our journal that assist the editors to make informed decisions about manuscript acceptance.
Therefore the editors of the ASPUR Journals would like to thank to all colleagues who reviewed on a voluntary basis some manuscripts submitted during 2023-2025. Their help highly improved the quality of our journal.