Criteria for Publication
Ilomata International Journal of Management receives more submissions than they can publish. To be published in Ilomata International Journal of Management, a manuscript should meet six general criteria:
1. Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
2. All empirical methods including, but not limited to, qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, and mixed methods are welcome.
3. Of extreme importance to practitioners in the specific field.
4. Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
5. Whilst a major focus of the journal is on the South East Asian region, and organization, business, strategic management, HR, operation, or entrepreneurship issues connected with it, other areas may also be considered.
6. Strong empirical and theoretical contributions and highlight the significance of those contributions to the management field. Thus, preference is given to submissions that test, extend, or build strong theoretical frameworks while empirically examining issues with high importance for management theory and practice.

In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field.

Ilomata International Journal of Management Review Process
All manuscripts will be subject to editorial review and double blind peer reviews. Papers that do not meet the criteria for inclusion or are otherwise inappropriate will be rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field). All submitted manuscripts to Ilomata International Journal of Management are screened for plagiarism using Ithenticate. Manuscript exceeding 30% in a plagiarism check will be automatically rejected. Manuscripts judged to be appropriate for inclusion in Ilomata International Journal of Management are sent for formal review.

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review. Typically two experts review each paper; however they may be subject to more advanced scrutiny if more specialized advice is needed in regards to statistics or techniques.
Based on the reviewers' comments, the editors will then accept or reject the papers with the following conditions:
1. Accept and publish, with or without editorial revisions.
2. Invite the authors to revise their manuscript and address specific concerns.
3. Reject the article outright, typically on grounds of lack of originality, insufficient conceptual advancements or major technical and/or interpretational problems.

Any changes made to the original manuscript will be clearly stated for the authors to review. The authors should carefully examine sentence structure, the completeness and accuracy of the text, references, tables, and graphic contents of the revised manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief will have the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit articles on all aspects of style, format, and clarity. Manuscripts with excessive errors in any aspect (e.g. spelling or punctuation) will be returned to authors for revision before resubmission or may be rejected entirely.

Ilomata International Journal of Management welcomes recommendations from reviewers regarding edits to prospective manuscripts; however in the event of conflicting advice from reviewers, the editors will make a final decision on the course of action. Editors will try to evaluate the strength of the arguments reported from each reviewer, relevant comments made by the authors, and any other information that may not be available to either parties before reaching a decision. Ilomata International Journal of Management's primary responsibilities are to our readers and the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them we must assess the validity and reliability of each paper against the many others also under consideration.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on certain points. Therefore we ask the reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice when requested. The editors are very aware that reviewers may be reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes; therefore the editors will try to keep consultations to the minimum that we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.

When reviewers agree to assess a paper, the editors consider this as a commitment to review subsequent revisions if necessary, and the editors will not resubmit a paper back to the reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

Ilomata International Journal of Management take reviewers' feedback and criticisms seriously. In particular, editors are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, editors may consult the other reviewer as to whether he/she is applying an unduly critical standard. Editors may occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, however we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical problem, on which we feel a need for further advice.

Selecting Peer-Review
Reviewer selection is crucial in publication process, thus the editors usually assign a reviewer based on many factors, such as reviewer's expertise, reputation, specific recommendation and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. Furthermore, the editors avoid selecting people who are slow in responding, careless or do not provide reasoning for their perspectives, whether harsh or lenient. Editors will also check the availability of reviewers before sending them the manuscript to review.

Ilomata International Journal of Management is committed to rapid response, editorial decisions, and publication. The editors believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service, both for authors and to the scientific community as a whole. Therefore, we urge the reviewers to provide feedback promptly within the number of days agreed. If the reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we require the new specific date confirmation of feedback, so that we still can inform the authors about the delay, and where necessary, we will find other alternatives.

The editors do not release the reviewers' identities to the authors or vice versa, except the reviewers specifically require to be identified. Editors prefer the reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. We require the reviewers not to identify themselves to the authors without the editors' permission.