Reviewing for journals is a professional honor that provides value for the profession as a whole. The purpose of review is to make scholarly judgment and critically evaluate the manuscript for its quality and originality of research, as well as determine its overall presentation and value. The journal's reputation depends on this peer review process.

Apeejay Journal of Management &Technology has a double-blind review process and its aim is to publish conceptually / empirically sound papers, which have the potential to enrich the existing management and technical education, theory and practice. The papers can be contributed from the fields of management science and technology including general management, marketing, finance, human resource management, logistic management, strategies, technology management, e-commerce, business communication, information technology, economics, statistics, accounting, operations research including macro as well as micro perspectives. In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the author(s), the following points may be considered by the reviewers for judging the suitability of the manuscript for Apeejay Journal of Management & Technology.

  1. The originality and appropriateness of the manuscript should be examined by  evaluating its overall contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
  2. The reviewer should check the manuscript for being concise and well organized. It should tell a story—taking the reader from the research questions posed earlier to their answers in the results and conclusions.
  3. The journal aims to publish sound and well written manuscripts. It would be highly appreciable if the reviewer provides valuable suggestions on polishing and rewriting the poorly worded manuscript to make them more logical.
  4. In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the author(s), reviewers should always keep in mind that their review captures their scholarly judgment about the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide a developmental reviews incorporating the following:
  • The abstract should be presenting the nature of research, its purpose and a concrete set of findings. Further, the keywords should highlight the main areas of research study undertaken.
  • The research work presented should be in line with the stated objectives.
  • The data sources, methodology and statistical techniques applied should be sound and appropriate to the research purpose.
  • The figures and tables inform the reader, about an important part of the story. Hence, the tables and figures should be examined to see if the legends are clear and if they demonstrate the same thing that is stated in the text. 
  • The research results and findings are surely the heart of the article. They should be clearly stated in unambiguous terms. Unnecessary conjecture or unfounded conclusions should be avoided.
  • Reviewers should be alert to missing citations to similar work, and draw those to the attention of the authors and the editor.

Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming but if a reviewer feels that a longer time period is required; the reviewer should communicate the same to the Editor, at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. at the earliest. It would be highly appreciable if the reviewers respect the confidentiality of the review process. Reviewers should neither discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the Editor, nor share any information from the manuscript without permission.