We use a double-blind system for peer review; both reviewers' and authors’ identities remain anonymous. The paper will be peer-reviewed by three experts; two external reviewers and one editor from the journal typically involved in reviewing a manuscript. The review process may take 2-14 weeks. Here is the flow chart of how we evaluate your article.

Pre-check

Immediately upon submission, the journal's Managing Editor will conduct an initial review to determine:

1. The manuscript's overall suitability for the journal/section/Special Issue;
2. The manuscript's adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards; and
3. The manuscript's rigor qualifies for further review.

Academic editors, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief for regular submissions, the Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board member of Agile Governance and Innovation Measurement-AGIM in the case of a conflict of interest and for regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief permits, will be notified of the submission and invited to conduct a check and recommend reviewers. Academic editors have the option of proceeding with peer review, rejecting a paper, or requesting amendments before peer review.

Special Issue Guest Editors are not permitted to make choices on their manuscripts submitted to their Special Issue, since this would represent a conflict of interest. Rather than that, an Editorial Board member will be in charge of decision-making. Except in their capacity as author, the Guest Editor will be unable to participate in the review process. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief and other Editorial Board members do not have access to their manuscript's review process except in their capacity as authors.

Peer Review

From submission to final decision or publishing, a dedicated member of the editorial board organizes the review process and acts as the primary point of contact for authors, academic editors, and reviewers.

For the majority of journals, the review process is double-blind, which means that the author is unaware of the reviewer's identity, and the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity as well. Certain journals use double-blind peer review, in which the author is ignorant of the reviewer's identity and the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity.

Each submitted paper receives at least two review reports. The academic editor may provide reviewer suggestions during pre-check. Alternatively, the editorial team will consult with qualified members of the Editorial Board, qualified reviewers from our database, and fresh reviewers discovered via online searches for similar papers.

If the journal has a reviewer board, these reviewers may apply to evaluate a paper if the authors agree during submission.

All reviewers are subjected to the following checks:

1. They must not have a conflict of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
2. They must have a PhD;
3. They must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper, and Reviewers who agree to review an article are required to meet the following criteria:
4. Have the appropriate competence to evaluate the manuscript's quality;
5. Provide high-quality review reports and maintain responsiveness during peer review; and
6. Adhere to professional and ethical standards.

Reviewers who accept an offer to submit a review have 2–10 weeks to complete it using our online platform.

Reviewers are requested to provide their report on a revised manuscript within three days of receiving it. Extensions are also available upon request.

The administrative staff assists academic editors by managing all correspondence with reviewers, authors, and the external editor. Academic editors may check the progress of articles and the identities of reviewers at any time and can communicate with The staff at any step of the review process.

Revision

When only minor or substantial adjustments are needed, THE staff will ask the author to modify the manuscript before forwarding it to the academic editor. When contradictory review reports are received, or when one or more recommendations for rejection are made, the academic editor's judgment will be sought before communicating a modification decision to the authors.

Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be supplied to reviewers, depending on the reviewer's request. Reviewers who seek significant adjustments or suggest rejection will automatically be provided with the amended paper. The Editor allows all reviewers to examine the most current version of the paper.

Normally, a maximum of two rounds of substantial revision are included with each paper. If more rounds are deemed necessary by the reviewers, THE staff will consult with the academic editor.

Editor's Choice

After receiving a minimum of two review reports, the academic editor may make acceptance judgments on papers. An academic editor makes acceptance choices (the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Guest Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board member). Guest Editors are unable to make judgments on their articles, which will be allocated to an appropriate member of the Editorial Board. When making a choice, we want the academic editor to consider the following factors:

1. Reviewer appropriateness;
2. Adequacy of reviewer remarks and author response; and
3. Overall scientific quality of the manuscript.

Accept in its existing form, accept with minor adjustments, reject and deny resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, request revision from the author, or request an additional reviewer.

Reviewers provide suggestions, and the Editors-in-Chief or academic editors have the right to disagree. They should defend their judgment for the benefit of the writers and reviewers if they do so.

Occasionally, an academic editor may support a paper acceptance decision notwithstanding a reviewer's recommendation to reject it. Before expressing a final judgment to the authors, THE staff will seek a second independent view from a member of the Editorial Board or the Editor-in-Chief.

Only an academic editor may accept an article for publication. Employed THE personnel, who then tell the writers. THE STAFF NEVER MAKES APPROVAL DECISIONS BASED ON DOCUMENTS.

THE STAFF OR MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD (INCLUDING THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF) DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESSING OF THEIR ACADEMIC WORK. At least two impartial reviewers are appointed to modify their contributions. Other Editorial Board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the writers make decisions.

This journal is a signatory to the 2012 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) (DORA). We seek to publish all scientifically sound submissions and to avoid artificially inflating journal rejection rates, enabling the reader community to determine impact.

Production

AGIM's in-house staff edit and copyedit all manuscripts, as well as convert them to XML. Language editing is performed by English editing professionals. In the few instances when considerable editing or formatting is necessary, we provide writers with an English editing service for an extra price (with prior consent from the authors). Additionally, writers may consult alternative English editing services or a native English-speaking colleague—the latter of which is our recommended choice.