Reviewers are the bloodline of scientific journals; thus, we place them on the higher ground. Jurnal Minds: Manajemen Ide dan Inspirasi follows the ethical guidelines of the COPE regarding the review process ( The review process will be initiated should the article pass the initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor. This initial screening will clarify the following:

(1) The suitability of the journal with the focus/scope of the journal as well as its author guidelines or template. The Editors may execute a desk rejection if the article does not conform to the author's guidelines or lack a potential contribution to Management Science as highlighted in our journal's focus and scope. Topic repetition to past publications of Jurnal Minds: Manajemen Ide dan Inspirasi may also result in a desk rejection. Submitted articles must not be under-processed or submitted elsewhere during the review. These initial checkings typically take a week before moving to the next step.

(2) The appointment of the Editorial Manager on the potential manuscript according to their field of interest.

The appointed Editor will ensure the manuscript is ready for the double-blind peer review. Furthermore, he/she will select the Reviewers from our Editorial Board according to their research interests and agreement. A minimum of two independent Boards will handle one manuscript. The average working time of the Reviewers is within 2 months after their appointment for a single manuscript. The Editorial Manager will mediate all communication between the Reviewer Boards and authors in the preprint process, facilitated in our open-journal-system dashboard. Specifically, the Board's duties are:

(1) To stay neutral in the review process. They must declare all potential competing interests regarding the appointed article. The Boards may accept or reject the request at this point if any competing interest is present. The Board must maintain data confidentiality by not using the data in the appointed article for their benefit. They must be unbiased in any means and report to the Editorial Office if such problem occurs. 

(2) The Editorial Board must reflect the highest ethical standard by reporting potential ethical misconduct to the Editorial Office. 

(3) The Editorial Boards will assess the English quality of the article

(4) They are also requested to provide substantive inputs to improve the papers. Specifically, the papers must meet the standardized abstract information, the prescriptions of the research problems, the potential contribution of the uploaded papers to the current field of knowledge, the applicability/replicability and the details of the research methods, and the information in the article results (how the information is provided in the body of the manuscript, table, figure, or formulas). The articles must provide a substantive discussion regarding the research's findings. 

(5) The Editorial Board will provide recommendations regarding the references' quality and sufficiency. 

(6) The Editorial Board must not recommend the addition of citations from their publications. The breach of this policy is considered severe misconduct resulting in the deletion and ban from the journal system. A new reviewer will be appointed to replace his/her place in the review process.

(7) The Editorial Board provides decisions to accept, revise, resubmit, or decline manuscripts. This decision is final and will be conveyed to the authors. 

The Editor will communicate the board's comments and decisions to the authors. This process aims to ensure that the authors address and highlight each comment. If there are conflicting decisions between reviewers, the Editor may create another round with independent boards to clarify the discourses. All reviews are owned by the journal and not published. A rejected manuscript will be returned to the authors and must not be used for the publisher's benefit. Once an article is accepted, it will undergo a copyediting and final layout to maintain the manuscript presentation before publication. Post publications will be maintained by the editorial office, as detailed in our Publishing Ethics


Note: as of 2024, we will provide a stimulus of $70 for every substantialy-reviewed paper.