All submitted manuscripts are subject to editorial assessment and, where appropriate, independent peer review. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly considerations and are not influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics unrelated to the academic quality of the manuscript.

Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) maintains clear procedures for manuscript assessment, peer review, revision, editorial decisions, appeals, complaints, and the handling of publication-ethics concerns.

The journal is committed to protecting the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished information throughout the editorial and peer-review process. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are expected to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest.

Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) maintains procedures for addressing suspected breaches of research and publication ethics, including:

• Plagiarism and substantial textual overlap.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Fabricated or manipulated data.
• Authorship and contributorship disputes.
• Citation manipulation.
• Peer-review concerns.
• Other potential breaches of research and publication ethics.

Editorial policies are periodically reviewed and may be updated to remain consistent with internationally recognized principles of scholarly publishing and publication ethics, including relevant guidance from COPE and transparency principles applicable to open-access scholarly journals.