Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW GUIDELINES
SAMMA AJIVA: Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen Buddha

The Editorial Board of SAMMA AJIVA: Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen Buddha extends its sincere appreciation to all Peer Reviewers for their time, expertise, and dedication in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal.

All submitted manuscripts undergo a Double-Blind Peer Review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential. Reviewers are kindly requested to evaluate each manuscript based on the following ethical principles and assessment criteria.

1. Ethics and Confidentiality

a. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, reproduce, or use any unpublished material from the manuscript for personal research, publication, or any other purpose without prior permission from the Editor.

b. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers who identify any potential conflict of interest including financial, institutional, professional, collaborative, or personal relationships with the authors or the research topic must immediately inform the Editor and decline the review invitation.

c. Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, fairly, and constructively. Feedback should focus on the scholarly content of the manuscript. Personal criticism (ad hominem) or inappropriate comments toward the authors are unacceptable.

2. Evaluation Criteria

In assessing the manuscript, reviewers should consider the following aspects:

a. Novelty and Originality

Does the manuscript provide significant academic contributions or original insights?
Does it offer new theoretical, empirical, or practical perspectives in the fields of Business, Management, or Buddhist Economics?

b. Relevance

Is the topic consistent with the Focus and Scope of SAMMA AJIVA?
Does the manuscript contribute meaningfully to the journal's intended readership?

c. Research Methodology

Is the research design appropriate and scientifically sound?
Are the population, sample, data collection procedures, and analytical methods clearly described and justified?
Are the methods valid, reliable, and suitable for addressing the research objectives?

d. Discussion and Implications

Are the findings critically discussed rather than merely presenting statistical results?
Are the findings interpreted in relation to relevant theories and previous studies?
Are the theoretical and practical implications clearly explained?

e. Citations and References

Are the references current and relevant?
Does the manuscript cite at least 80% of its references from primary peer-reviewed journal articles published within the last 10 years?

Are all citations and references formatted according to the APA Style (7th Edition)?

3. Review Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should provide clear, specific, and constructive comments (preferably referring to relevant page, paragraph, or line numbers where applicable) and select one of the following recommendations in the Open Journal Systems (OJS):

1. Accept Submission
The manuscript is suitable for publication without requiring any revisions.

2. Revisions Required
Minor revisions are necessary. The revised manuscript does not require an additional round of peer review.

3. Resubmit for Review

Major revisions are required. The revised manuscript must be resubmitted and undergo another round of peer review.

4. Resubmit Elsewhere

The manuscript does not fall within the journal's focus and scope but may be suitable for publication in another scholarly journal.

5.Decline Submission

The manuscript should be rejected due to fundamental methodological weaknesses, insufficient scholarly quality, ethical concerns, or a high similarity/plagiarism risk.