Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

It gives me great pleasure and honor to welcome you to the Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences (SJMS). It is my expectation this journal will give our field an academic voice and a venue for research that will enhance our critical and intellectual understanding of business education-related issues. Ultimately, as any academic endeavor must begin and end with the interests of enriching the existing knowledge in mind, I believe Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences (SJMS) will play its role appropriately. The Journal is, therefore, the ideal venue for the discussion of quality research in our field. In this way, we hope we will be able to fill an important academic niche. As such we welcome and encourage submission of quality original academic research focused on a wide range of business related issues. We are honored to share the work of so many committed and thoughtful people. We appreciate your support and are so happy to have you as a contributor and reader of our journal. The journal editorial team is committed to maintain a high international and scientific standard by publishing original articles of research in order to establish the journal as one of the informative journals in business education. The journal editorial board appeals to all researchers globally to contribute genuinely to advance the task of our journal in order to serve the academic community. We are looking forward to receiving your submission of articles, reports and notes.

The journal accepts papers in the field of management (Human Resource Management, Finance, and Marketing), business education, and behavioural sciences.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

I am pleased to inform all researchers/authors that the Sarhad University Journal of Management Sciences has gone online. The Journal follows double blind peer review process, which is widely accepted as an objective process for the selection of quality papers. In this regard the role of referees is vital for maintaining quality standards for our journal. Therefore, all manuscript submitted to this journal are required to pass the peer review outlined below:

Manuscript Initial Evaluation

As soon as a submission is received, the Editors are tasked to evaluate it. After this initial evaluation, the submitted article may either be accepted to be forwarded for peer review or otherwise. The causes for rejection at this stage may be the insufficient originality, suffers from serious conceptual problems, very weak in grammar or English language, have scientific/ objective flaws, or may not fall within the aims and scope of the journal. In both the cases researchers/authors will be notified within 3-4 weeks after the submission.

Type of Peer Review

SJMS will be employing double blind review. The purpose of this blind review is to keep the author and referee anonymous throughout the process.

Selection of a Referee

The journal has a list of referees and this selection for any submission is made on the basis of matching principles. In addition, the journal management welcomes suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations are not necessarily used.

Referee Reports 
Referees have been instructed to evaluate the submission keeping in view the following basic points:

-  Originality of the manuscript

-  Theoretical contribution of the submission

-  Methodological soundness of the submission

-  Research guidelines have properly been followed

-  Is conclusion of the research is in line with the objective of the research?

-  Has the extant literature referred to in the text relevancy to the topic under discussion?

-  Has research implications been provided?

-  Has the subject been presented in lucid language?

Duration of Review Process

It will be hard to give any absolute duration for the review as it is subject to the response of the referees. However, the typical time for this journal may protract to 8 weeks. In case of divergent views from the referees, in such cases additional expert opinion will be sought which can add to the already committed duration. In some cases when finding a second editor is difficult, and the Editors feel that one referee report is outrightly convincing, the Editor has the discretion to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.

Final Report

Author(s) will be informed about the final decision, along with any recommendations made by the referees, regarding acceptance or rejection of the submission will be sent to the author.

The Editor's Decision is Final

Referees recommendations/views will be given due weightage in the decision process by the Editor. However, the Editor, will be responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Becoming a referee for Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences

Any researcher whose expertise falls within the scope of this journal, and who is not on the list of current reviewers, and who is willing to become a referee and would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editorial office at: sjms@suit.edu.pk. The benefits of refereeing for the journal would include enriching one’s research experience, and contributing to the overall integrity of academic research and its published documentation. Referees can cite their work for Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences as part of their professional development requirements for various professional societies and organizations.


Publication Frequency

Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences is a biannual research journal


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences (SJMS)

Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences (SJMS), a research journal, is a peer-reviewed bi-annual research journal that publishes the research work of scholars, practitioners and academicians to impart the quality of empirical and theoretical research. Knowledge economy is the way forward for Pakistan in this competitive era. In order to emphasize upon the importance of research and innovation and to supplement its policy of promoting R & D activities, the University is looking for the research papers from all the researchers to contribute.


Plagiarism Policy

By no way the journal allows plagiarism in any form. This journal believes in the originality and novelty of research and, therefore, a newly submitted paper will, first, will be checked for similarity index (Turnitin) by emp. After satisfactorily fulfilling this condition (the benchmark for similarity index is 19%-the limit set by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan), the paper will, then be considered for review. Otherwise the papers will be rejected at the first level.

The journal, therefore, strongly suggest NOT to use or copy any part of the already published materials without giving due acknowledgment to the original source.


Journal's Corrections and Retraction Policy

Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences Corrections and Retraction Policy

As Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences is not only online but has a print version as well, therefore, every article published by the Journal passes through strict editing, proofreading, peer review process and in its final form including the abstract, text, references and all accompanying tables, illustrations, data; and any supplemental material constitutes final, definitive, and citable version in the scholarly record.

"Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact, and unaltered to the maximum extent possible"

However, if some error(s) is identified and notified through email or otherwise, and about which the Journal’s editors agree a correction is warranted, and your article has been published online only, we will correct the error online, linking to a notice of correction via a footnote.

However, if we find a correction is warranted, but your article has already appeared in an issue, online and in print, we cannot make any changes to the online version. Instead, we will publish a correction notice which will be linked to the original article online.

The different types of corrections the Journal allows to make


An erratum will be used if a significant error has been introduced by us during the production of the journal article, including errors of omission such as failure to make factual proof corrections requested by authors within the deadline provided by the journal and within journal policy. A 'significant error' is one that affects the scholarly record, the scientific integrity of the article, the reputation of the authors, or of the journal.



A corrigendum is a notification of a significant error made by the authors of the article. All corrigenda are normally approved by the editors of the journal. 



An addendum is a notification of an addition of information to an article, for example in response to a reader's request for clarification or funding information. Addenda do not contradict the original publication, but if the author inadvertently omitted significant information available at the time, this material can be published as an addendum. Addenda requires to be peer reviewed and are normally subject to oversight by the editors of the journal.

Addenda relating to the article content are published only rarely and only when the journal editors decide that an addendum is crucial to the reader's understanding of a significant part of the published article. Addenda relating to funding information are also published as and when required.

Comments, responses, and rejoinders



A retraction is a means to notify the community of unsound results or misconduct, following an investigation of the issue in question by the editors of the Journal. Either can be held to compromise the validity and reliability of an article, and the latter can be held to damage the reputation of the journal.

Retractions for unsound results are made when the conclusions of an article are seriously undermined as a result of miscalculation or error.

Retractions for misconduct are made when there has been an infringement of publishing ethics or a breach of author warranties, which can include breaches of third party copyright. 

In cases of serious misconduct, the Publisher reserves the right to prohibit an author from making new submissions to any of our journals for up to three years. 

The rationale for a retraction will be given in a Statement of Retraction.


Article removals

On occasion the Publisher may be obliged to remove an article from the Journal’s archives as a consequence of a legal action. Removal will be indicated on the issue table of contents, by the insertion of “Article withdrawn’ to prefix the article title and in place of the removed content, by the posting of an Article Withdrawal notice.

Corrections to articles are free to access

The Publisher of Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences makes all corrections to journal articles completely free to access on in all cases, whether these are corrigenda, errata, or statements of retraction.


Copyright & Licensing

Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences by Sarhad University of Science & Information Technology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International LicenseBased on a work at suit.edu.pk.

The Journal allows its author(s) to retain their copyright. 

This license means that: 

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
  • for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
  • The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.


Ethics Statements

Publication Ethics

We believe that we are part of the academic community and must not fall short of the publicaiton standards that exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their work and ideas.

Keeping that in view, we have been follwoing publication ethics for journals by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. 

I.       Ethical Guidelines for Authors 

Reporting standards

Author(s) are responsible to ensure that the submission contains adequate detail and references to the sources of information in order to allow others to reproduce the results. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statement constitutes unethical behavior and will be unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism

Author(s) are responsible to ascertain that the submission is original work, giving due credit, by virtue of proper citations, to the works and/or words of others where they are used. Plagiarism is unethical and is not acceptable. Material quoted verbatim from the author(s) previously published work or other sources must be placed in quotation marks with reference to specific page number. As per HEC policy, similarity index upto 19% is allowed.


Authors are required to make a declaration during the submission process that the manuscript under consideration contains solely their original work and that the same not under consideration for publishing in any other journal in any form. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that each author has contributed substantially towards the preparation of the manuscript in order to claim right to authorship.

Multiple, redundant and current publication

Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal or publication except if is a re-submission of a rejected or withdrawn manuscript. Authors can re-publish previously conducted research that has been substantially altered or corrected using more meticulous analysis or by adding more data. The authors and editor-in-chief must agree to the secondary publication, which must cite the primary references and reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of sources

A paper must always contain proper acknowledgment of the work of others, including clear indications of the sources of all information quoted or offered, except that what is common knowledge. Author(s) must also acknowledge the contributions of people, organizations and institutes who assisted the process of research, including those who provided technical help, writing assistance or financial funding (in acknowledgement). It is the duty of the author(s) to conduct a literature review and properly cite the original publications that describe closely related work.

Authorship of the work

Authorship of the work may only be credited to those who have made a noteworthy contribution in conceptualization, design, conducting, data analysis and writing up of the manuscript. The corresponding author has the responsibility to include name of only those co- authors who have made significant contributions to the work and that they have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Privacy of participants

The Journal honors and respects the privacy of the participants and will not use any information obtained from them without their informed consent. However, it is the reasonability of the authors to share only such information that improves the understanding of the study. Furthermore, authors must ensure that in instances where the identity of the participant needs to be revealed in the study, explicit and informed consent of the concerned party is obtained. In the event of the demise of a participant, consent must be obtained from the family of the deceased. The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Data access and retention

If question arises about the accuracy or validity of the research work during the review process the author(s) should provide raw data to the editor-in-chief.


The author(s) should ensure that images included in a submission or in the data collection as part of the research are free from manipulations. There needs to be an accurate description of the images contained in a submission.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The potential and relevant competing financial, personal social or other interest of all author(s) that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the manuscript must be conveyed to the editor-in-chief in a note to the editor in the form of separate file. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed alongside a brief overview of the role played, if any by the responses during the various stages of research.


Authors may have to sign an agreement allowing the journal to reserve the right to circulate the article and all other derivative works such as translations.

II.    Ethical Guidelines for Editors

Editorial team’s responsibility

Editorial team of the journal is responsible to establish and maintain quality of the journal by publishing quality papers while promoting freedom of expression within the cultural, constitutional/legal framework. The team is also responsible to provide integrity and credibility of the research contributions and meeting the needs of authors and readers by maintaining all the ethical standards stated here and there in the policies of the journal.

Fair play and impartiality

The Journal assures that selection of research is impartial and purely on merit basis. The journal categorically disregards the discriminating factors, e.g. gender, race, ethnicity, religious belief, cultural sentiments, political affiliation, seniority and/or institutional association of the author(s) while selecting articles for publication.


The Journal ensures confidentiality of the author(s) and reviewers during the process of double-blind peer review. This aspect has further been explained in the policy section of Peer Review Process.

Editing and formatting guidelines

To make the job easy for the authors, detailed author guidelines are provided under the Submission heading.

Review process

Details about review process has been delineated in Peer Review Process Section.

Dealing with misconduct

To curb unethical practices, reviewers can report to the editor about ethical issues and possible research and publication misconduct in case the submitted research paper has indulged in (e.g. inappropriate research design, incomplete detail on participants consent, data manipulation, presentation. Such comments by the reviewer is highly welcomed and the editor will look into the validity of reported case and identify subtle (simply copy-paste) and/or blatant (paraphrasing) type of plagiarism, if, practiced by the author(s). In case, unethical practice is proved the editor will publish a corrigendum, remove and retract a published article subsequent to its publication.


The Journal discourages the submission of multiple papers as a principal investigator by an author in the same issue. To provide space for diverse authors, only ONE co-authorship will be allowed for those authors who will also contribute a research paper as a principal investigator in the same issue. For the members of the editorial board (including the editor), it will only be limited to ONE paper per issue either to submit research paper as a principal investigator or co-author. It should be noted that authorship is the exclusive right of those who have substantially contributed in the said article.

Conflict of interest

Editor will not edit a submitted paper for those author(s) and/or institution against whom there is any conflicts of interest (e.g. resulting from competitive, collaborative and/or professional standing. The editor will also apply this guideline on their reviewers and editorial board members. To ensure this, a statement of conflict of interest has inserted in the specific guidelines to the reviewers. The common interests (e.g. financial, academic and/or any other type) for all editorial board members and editorial staff.


Editor-in-chief will not use any unpublished information/data from the submitted research paper without the permission of the author(s), and any information received after peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gains.

Publication decisions

It the exclusive jurisdiction of the editor-in-chief to short list research papers which have relevancy with the scope of the journal based on his judgment free of any prejudice. After completion of the reviewing process, submission of revised manuscript, and assessing the quality and validity, the editor-in-chief has a right to accept or reject a research paper purely on merit, academic standards and professional demands of the journal. Author(s) will be conveyed cogent reasons for rejecting a research paper. This may include:

  • Failure to fit in the scope of the journal (can be communicated after preliminary review);
  • No contribution to the existing theoretical foundations;
  • Major errors related to design, analysis, write up and format; and
  • Any misconduct or conflicting factors (e.g. plagiarism, copyright infringement, legal issues, fake data, authorship issues).

Establishing a procedure for appeal

Author(s) has the right to appeal to the editor-in-chief against the rejection of a research paper, objections to publications causing harm to any party and infringing ethical boundaries in any manner.

III.     Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Suitability and promptness

The editor-in-chief assigns a submitted article to a reviewer keeping in view her/his research interest and provides a chance to the reviewer(s) to whether agree or disagree to review the submission. It the reviewer thinks that if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review and s/he should inform the editor immediately after receiving a request. A responsible behaviour, during the whole process, is expected from the reviewer.

Standards of objectivity

To ensure objectivity in the review, reviewers are expected to carry out objective review keeping in consideration the academic, scholarly and scientific standards. All judgments need to be meticulously established and maintained in order to ensure the full comprehension of the reviewers’ comments by the editorial office and the author(s). Both reviewers and author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported assertions. Reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be inappropriate and impressible to resort to personal criticism on the author(s). And reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely based on the quality of the research paper and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

A reviewer should not, for the purpose of his/her own research, use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the approval of the editor-in-chief. The data included in the research paper is confidential and the reviewer need not use the same for his/her any personal study. Reviewer must declare, if there is, any potentially conflicting interests (e.g. personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious). In this situation, s/he is required to follow journals policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. A reviewer is expected to be honest to declare conflicts of interest, if, the research paper under reviews is the same to his/her presently conducted study. And if the reviewer feels unqualified to separate his/her bias, s/he should immediately return the manuscript to the editor-in-chief without review, and justify to him/her about this.


It is the academic responsibility of the reviewers to honour the confidentiality of the submitted work and not discuss its content in any platform except in cases where a professional advice is being sought with the authorization of the editor. A reviewer is professionally and ethically bound not to disclose the details of the research paper prior to its publication without the prior approval of the editor-in-chief.

Dealing with misconduct in the submission

If a reviewer feels that the submission is almost the same of someone else’s work, or the results in research paper to be untrue/unrealistic/fake, or if there has been an indication for violating the ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, female, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc.), or if the research paper is based on any previous research study or is replica of an earlier work, or the author has not acknowledged/referenced others work appropriately, s/he has ethical responsibility to inform the editor-in-chief and provide its citation as a reference.


For evaluating originality, peer reviewers should consider the following elements: Does the research paper add to the existing knowledge? And do the research questions and/or hypotheses are appropriate to the objective of the research work?


The reviewer is expected to look if the paper has followed the prescribed format and in case of violation, return the same to the editor-in-chief. Besides, If there is serious problem of language expression and reviewer gets an impression that the research paper does not fulfill the linguistic requirements and readers would face difficulties to read and comprehend the paper, the reviewer should record this deficiency in his/her report and suggest the editor-in-chief to make its proper editing. If there is duplication in illustrations including photographs, models, charts, images and figures, the same needs to be reported. The reviewer is expected to critically review the statistical analysis of the data. There is a need of linking the methodology section in detail and make sure that the author(s) has demonstrated the understanding of the procedures being used and presented in the manuscript. Furthermore, it has to be ensured that there exists a close relationship between data, findings and discussion.

Review report

A reviewer is supposed to record her/her observations in the light of the above. A reviewer is expected to fill in completely the review form as per requirement and additional comments if s/he thinks proper. Such comments need to summarize a reviewer’s final decision and inferences drawn from full review. For the understanding of the editor-in-chief and author(s), a reviewer should highlight any deficiency in some detail with specificity. The part that requires a reviewer’s decision regarding research paper, should clearly indicate as Reject, Accept without revision, or Need Revision and either of the decisions should have justification of the same.

However, final decision about publishing a research paper (either accept or reject) solely rests with the editor-in-chief and it is not a reviewers job to take part in this decision. The editor-in-chief will surely consider reviewers comments and have a right to send the paper for another opinion or send back to the author(s) for its revisions before making the final decision.

Note: These statements are customizaiton of publication ethics for journals by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan