The Double-Blind Review Standard
Grazing Minds Journal adheres to an impartial, rigorous double-blind evaluation architecture. All original research submissions proceed through initial desk screening followed by independent external review to guarantee scholarly merit, methodological credibility, and practical organizational consequence.
01 Initial Editorial Desk Screening
Upon intake, each manuscript undergoes preliminary desk screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated section editor. Submissions are assessed for alignment with Journal aims and scope, manuscript originality, basic scholarly depth, formatting compliance, and completeness of author declarations.
Manuscripts that fall distinctly outside the Journal’s thematic focus, exhibit insufficient academic rigor, or fail core formatting requirements may be declined immediately at the desk screening stage without dispatch to external reviewers.
02 Selection of Independent Referees
Submissions clearing desk screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with verifiable research credentials and subject matter expertise in the relevant management or technology discipline.
Reviewers are appointed strictly on merit. The editorial office systematically audits potential conflicts of interest—excluding colleagues from the author’s home institution, recent co-authors, and individuals with competing commercial interests.
03 Double-Blind Anonymization Protocols
To maintain objective peer evaluation, the identities of both authors and reviewers are completely concealed from each other throughout the review workflow.
Authors are required to remove all identifying metadata, acknowledgments, institutional affiliations, and direct self-citations from review copies prior to submission. While the editorial office enforces strict sanitization protocols, complete anonymity cannot be unconditionally guaranteed where papers examine proprietary or highly identifiable corporate interventions.
04 Evaluation Dimensions & Rubric
Referees evaluate submissions across standardized dimensions established to ensure academic rigor and organizational relevance:
05 Editorial Decision Framework
Following synthesis of referee reports, the editorial office renders one of four definitive decisions:
The paper satisfies all scholarship and presentation standards; proceeds directly to layout and production.
Requires minor conceptual adjustments, citation improvements, or editorial polish; reviewed by editors upon re-submission.
Demands substantial methodological strengthening, deeper empirical analysis, or theoretical re-framing; subject to re-review.
The manuscript falls below required scholarship benchmarks or reveals fundamental methodological shortcomings.
* Note: The ultimate authority for all publication decisions resides exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief.
06 Confidentiality & Ethical Obligations
All unpublished manuscripts transmitted to reviewers are strictly privileged, confidential documents. Referees must not share, cite, or leverage unpublished research data, frameworks, or insights for personal, commercial, or institutional advantage prior to formal publication.
Referees must promptly notify the editorial office and recuse themselves if they identify an undisclosed conflict of interest, personal relationship, or intellectual competition with the research under review.
07 Editorial Appeals Protocol
Authors who believe a rejection resulted from a verifiable material procedural error or fundamental factual misunderstanding of the methodology by referees may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office within 30 days of the decision.
Appeals must outline detailed, objective evidence rather than general dissatisfaction with editorial judgment. The Editor-in-Chief will independently evaluate the petition and determine whether re-evaluation or an independent external adjudicator is warranted. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal.