The peer review process at Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) begins after the manuscript has successfully passed the initial editorial screening. The process consists of reviewer assignment, independent evaluation, review reporting, editorial assessment, author revision when required, and final editorial decision.

The Editor of Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) identifies reviewers with appropriate subject expertise and research experience. Reviewers are selected according to the topic, methodology, and technical characteristics of the manuscript. Before accepting the assignment, reviewers should consider their availability, expertise, and potential conflicts of interest.

Invited reviewers should accept the assignment only when they have sufficient expertise and can complete the review within the requested timeframe. Reviewers who have a conflict of interest, lack the necessary expertise, or cannot complete the review within the required period should decline the invitation.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript carefully and independently. The assessment should consider the research objectives, literature foundation, methodology, technical implementation, data analysis, results, discussion, conclusions, references, presentation, originality, and scientific contribution. The evaluation should establish whether the manuscript meets the academic and scientific standards of Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA).

Reviewers submit a structured evaluation containing comments on the manuscript and a recommendation to the Editor. Major concerns should be clearly distinguished from minor corrections. Comments should provide sufficient explanation to help the authors understand the required improvements and strengthen the manuscript.

The Editor examines the reviewer reports and evaluates whether the recommendations are adequately supported. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may request clarification, invite an additional reviewer, or conduct further editorial assessment before reaching a decision for Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA).

When revisions are requested, authors must respond to the reviewer comments and revise the manuscript accordingly. The revised submission should clearly indicate the changes made and provide a response to substantive comments. Authors are expected to address the concerns raised during the review process and comply with the revision requirements communicated by Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA).

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other reviewers when necessary. Further review focuses particularly on whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during the previous round. Additional review may be conducted when needed to support a fair and well-informed editorial decision.

After the review and revision process has been completed, the Editor determines the final outcome based on the available reviewer assessments, the quality of the revised manuscript, and the editorial standards of Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA). The final decision may be acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.