Management Review evaluates submissions with two principles: the contribution and originality of the articles. We hope the accepted papers can make a concrete and unique contribution to management study. Therefore, the following cases, for instance, are usually not taken into consideration for acceptance: minor revisions of one’s own past findings (such as repeated application of similar theories or analytical methodology); simple re-application of foreign theories or models to local examples (without extracting new views or self-sustained argument); or minor adaption of established theories or models. While insistent on the policy of contribution and originality, Management Review understands that some authors may overlook the details of formatting requirements when preparing their submissions. Such carelessness can sometimes prevent their manuscripts from being considered for acceptance, but Management Review may tolerate minor errors case by case to encourage authors (and reviewers) to concentrate on the tangible impact and originality of the research.

Management Review adopts a double-blind peer review process, which means both the referee and author identities are concealed from each other throughout the process. The manuscripts MUST NOT contain any explicit or implicit information that may disclose the author’s identity, nor the referees give away their identity in the comments. If the double-blind privacy is breached, referees are strongly advised to notify the Editor-in-chief to prevent further reviewing.

Acceptance letter is written by the Editor-in-chief and his/her final decision primarily depends on the comments of two external reviewers at least, but not on a majority-rule basis. These comments will be provided for the authors along with an Acceptance/Rejection letter.

Papers that require revisions will be provided with sufficient time for the authors to improve their research quality.