Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts sent for publication in the Peradeniya Management Review are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts (this includes research and review articles and invited papers). The Co Editor of the journal will perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt. The Editorial board will then organize the double blind peer-review process performed by independent at least two experts and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. We ask our authors for adequate revisions before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by the academic editor (usually the Co Editor or the Guest Editor of a special issue). Accepted articles are copy-edited and English-edited.

Reviewer Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to Peradeniya Management Review (PMR) journal are reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the editorial board on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions or should be rejected.

As part of the assessment, reviewers will be asked:

  • to rate the contribution made by the paper to the relevant discipline, and the structure of the paper;
  • to provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript;
  • to provide a detailed comments on the relevance of the topic, Literature Review, Methodology, Analysis, Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations and the Limitations of the study.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential. PMR operate double blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted.

Timely Review Reports

PMR aims to provide an efficient and high quality publishing service to authors and to the scientific community. We ask reviewers to assist by providing review reports in a timely manner.

Rating the Manuscript

Reviewers are asked to rate the following aspects of the manuscript:

  • Extent of the contribution to the discipline:
    - Does the theoretical/conceptual framework sound enough?
    - Is the question original and well defined? Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge?
    - Does the paper involves with a solid methodology?
    - Does the paper contributes with effective findings and implications to the existing body of knowledge?
  • If no major contribution is made, does it nevertheless:
    - provide a useful summary?
    - suggest the relevant applications for the practitioners?
  • Structure of the paper:
    - Whether the paper involves the sufficient depth and breadth including a concise abstract?
    - Does the paper involve an effective length?
    - Does the paper include clear and correct English language, citations and the conclusions in the proper manner?


Reviewers are asked to provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:

  • Accept in Present Form: The paper is accepted without any further changes.
  • Accept with Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments.
  • Resubmitted after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
  • Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Section Policies


  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links