Journal of Supply Chain and Entrepreneurship (JoSCE) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in the fields of supply chain management, entrepreneurship, and related areas within the journal’s scope. Every manuscript submitted to JoSCE undergoes a rigorous editorial and peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

JoSCE applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, research, or other parties associated with the manuscript.

The peer review process at JoSCE consists of the following nine steps:

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system, which is supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Authors are expected to ensure that their manuscripts comply with the journal's author guidelines, scope, formatting requirements, publication ethics, and submission policies. Where temporarily permitted by the journal, manuscripts may also be submitted through the designated editorial email address and subsequently processed through the journal's editorial system.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team. At this stage, the editor evaluates whether the manuscript is consistent with the focus and scope of JoSCE and whether it follows the journal's author guidelines and required manuscript structure.

The editorial assessment also considers the manuscript's academic quality, clarity, originality, methodological appropriateness, completeness, and overall suitability for external review. Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical corrections or rejected if they fall substantially outside the journal's scope or fail to meet basic scholarly standards.

As part of the initial screening process, manuscripts are also subjected to a similarity or plagiarism check using Turnitin or other appropriate plagiarism-detection software before proceeding to external peer review.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

After the initial editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor evaluates whether the manuscript has sufficient originality, academic significance, methodological quality, and relevance to proceed to external peer review.

A manuscript that does not meet the journal's minimum academic or editorial requirements may be rejected at this stage without external peer review. This process helps ensure that reviewers are assigned only to manuscripts that demonstrate reasonable potential for publication.

4. Invitation to Independent Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess appropriate expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection is based on academic expertise, research experience, subject relevance, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not have relationships or circumstances that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the impartiality of their assessment.

JoSCE applies a double-blind review process, meaning that the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

5. Response to Review Invitations

Invited reviewers are requested to assess whether they have sufficient expertise, availability, and independence to review the manuscript.

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must consider whether any potential conflict of interest exists. Reviewers who believe that they cannot provide an objective and independent assessment are expected to decline the invitation. When appropriate, they may recommend other qualified experts; however, the final selection and appointment of reviewers remain the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.

6. Review is Conducted

Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript according to its originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, validity of analysis, quality of discussion, relevance of conclusions, adequacy of references, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the journal's field.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, evidence-based, and academically appropriate comments that can assist both the editor and the authors.

After completing their evaluation, reviewers submit a recommendation that may include:

• Accept;

• Minor revision;

• Major revision; or

• Reject.

The reviewers' recommendations serve as important inputs to the editorial decision; however, the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor.

7. Journal Evaluation of the Reviews

Once the required review reports have been received from at least two independent reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the reviewers' comments and recommendations together with the manuscript itself.

Where the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations or where additional specialist expertise is considered necessary, the editor may invite one or more additional independent reviewers before reaching an editorial decision.

Editorial decisions are based on the overall academic quality of the manuscript, the reviewers' assessments, the authors' responses where applicable, compliance with publication ethics, and the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

8. Communication of the Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's editorial system or official communication channel.

Where revisions are required, the anonymized comments and recommendations from the reviewers and editors are provided to the authors. Authors are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with JoSCE's double-blind peer review policy.

9. Revision, Final Decision, and Publication

Manuscripts requiring minor or major revisions are returned to the authors for revision. Depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the reviewers' comments, the revised manuscript may be reassessed by the handling editor and/or returned to the original or additional independent reviewers for further evaluation.

A manuscript is accepted only when the Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor is satisfied that the authors have adequately addressed the relevant academic and editorial concerns and that the manuscript meets the journal's publication standards.

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the copyediting, proofreading, production, and publication stages. Accepted articles are published online and made openly accessible in accordance with the journal's open-access policy.