Journal of Small Business Management

Journal info (provided by editor)

Issues per year
4
Articles published last year
81
Manuscripts received last year
719
% accepted last year
8
% immediately rejected last year
22
Open access status
open access
Manuscript handling fee?
no
Kind of complaint procedure
Editorial board
Two-year impact factor
1.93
Five-year impact factor
2.86

Aims and Scope

The primary purpose of the Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM) is to publish scholarly research articles in the fields of small business management and entrepreneurship. All manuscripts should address research issues in a rigorous way using qualitative, quantitative or a combination of these techniques; however, JSBM encourages the incorporation of pragmatic advice for practitioners based on the research results. The journal, which is circulated in 60 countries around the world, is the official journal of the International Council for Small Business (ICSB) and is recognized as a primary instrument for projecting and supporting the goals and objectives of this organization. JSBM is currently available in over 4,200 institutions globally, as well as another 5,400 institutions in deve

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 2 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 3.8 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 6.0 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.5 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 2.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 3.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 22.9 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
We received two reports. The first one was focused and asked for additional robustness tests to add credibility to the findings. These comments were useful and helped us improve the paper. The second report clearly indicated that the reviewer did not "liked" the paper and provided negative and somehow irrelevant comments regarding the methodology. Both reports had relatively contradictory perspectives about the paper.