About the Journal
The IIUM Journal of Case Studies in Management is an internationally refereed journal published twice yearly (January & August) by the Kulliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia.
The journal promotes case studies in the field of management. However, the editorial committee may receive a case study that is superficially related to “management” (MG), whereas its contents are directly related to another discipline. For example, a case study on “Financial Management” (FM). It is more linked to finance than management because the case contains a core issue on finance or financial management, not management. The word “management” in FM does not change the FM discipline to MG. FM is not MG, and vice versa but the two disciplines can be inter-related. To make the FM case fit the journal, the case author must reshape it towards “management” although the core issue of finance or FM remains.
The same explanation can be offered, for instance to “Marketing” or “Marketing Management” (MM). The word “management” in MM does not change the discipline of MM to MG. To make the MM case fit the journal, the case author must reshape it towards “management” although the core issue of marketing or MM remains.
Case studies provide certain educational objectives. While academic papers are more inclined towards enhancing knowledge and understanding in the areas, case studies inculcate applied-based learning and the acquisition of (problem-solving and decision-making) skills. In management, textbooks normally publish decision-making or problem-solving case studies.
The cases can be used by instructors, trainers, coaches, and students in certificates, diploma, bachelor, master’s in business administration, business management, or similar programmes. They may also be used for training and executive development.
Authors are highly encouraged to submit cases that deal with management issues in the Asia-Pacific region.
Type of access:
Open access. This is due to the maximum dissemination of the management cases published in the journal. However, the instructors of the cases are expected to acknowledge the journal while using the cases for class discussion.
Peer Review Process and Policy:
The IIUM Journal of Case Studies in Management (IJCSM) peer-review policy is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and supporting ethical research practices. Peer review, in all forms, is crucial for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. This process relies heavily on trust and requires everyone involved to act responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers are essential to this process, yet they often assume the role without adequate guidance and may not be fully aware of their ethical responsibilities. IJCSM follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers in which it outlines the fundamental principles and standards that all peer reviewers should follow during the peer-review process. These guidelines aim to offer valuable guidance to researchers, serve as a reference for journals and editors in directing their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions training their students and researchers.
*Type of Peer Review
The IIUM Journal of Case Studies in Management (IJCSM) utilises a ‘double blind’ review process, ensuring that referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and after the review process, while the identity of the author(s) also remains unknown to the reviewers. Authors must submit the title page (containing full author information) separately from the main manuscript.
*Referee Selection Process
Referees are selected based on their expertise relevant to the manuscript submitted.
The reviewer database of IIUM Journal of Case Studies in Management (IJCSM) is continuously updated. IJCSM welcomes referee suggestions from the author(s), although these recommendations are non-binding and may not be utilised. Each manuscript submitted will be reviewed by at least two independent referees after
which the editor will make a final decision.
*Referee reports
Referees will be asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
• The manuscript demonstrated originality in thought, methodology and data.
• The research is methodologically robust.
• The manuscript presents result clearly with statistical analysis and whether it supports the conclusion.
• The manuscript correctly and thoroughly cites previous relevant work.
• The manuscript adheres to appropriate ethical guidelines, particularly plagiarism.
• The research significantly contributes to the knowledge and advancement of the field.
Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but referees can suggest improvements to the language and style of the manuscript. During the final round, the
editor will review the manuscript for linguistic and stylistic accuracy, and therefore may apply or recommending corrections as needed. In rare instances, the author(s) may
need to do proofreading or comprehensive linguistic and style revisions by returning the manuscript.
*Peer Review Process
Upon receiving an email invitation to review a journal article, the referee should respond by clicking the provided link to indicate whether they are able to review the
manuscript. Following this, the referee can proceed with the steps outlined on the website. The referee may either fill in the comments for the author box or upload a file
with their comments. Later, each reviewer is required to make an initial decision by selecting one of the options provided.
a. Accept submission: The manuscript meet the standards of the journal and is ready for the copyediting and publication process.
b. Revisions required: Minor revisions are needed, which can be re-reviewed by the referee or accepted by the editor.
c. Resubmit for review: Major revisions are required with another round of peer review.
d. Resubmit elsewhere: The manuscript does not fit and meet the standards of the journals or the journal’s focus and scope.
e. Decline submission: The manuscript is rejected due to significant weakness and not meeting the journal’s standards.
*Duration of review process
The duration of the review process relies on the referees’ responsiveness. Typically, the review process will take about 1 to 3 months.
*Final report and decision
Based on the referee report and suggestion, along with revision done by the authors, the editor will have the final say on to whether to accept or reject the manuscript. The
decision will then be sent to the author(s) by email.
Publication Process:
After completion of the reviewing process, if a case is accepted by the editorial board, it will be sent for copyediting followed by the publication of the case. At this moment, only soft copies of the cases are published through the journal website.
Publication Fee:
There is no publication fee for IJCSM. All costs related to managing and publishing the journal are fully borne by the Kulliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences, IIUM, through its allocated budget.
Publication Ethics:
IIUM Journal of Case Studies in Management (IJCSM), a high-quality management case journal published by the International Islamic University Malaysia, has been publishing case studies on management since 2010.
While publishing, IJCSM adheres to the following code of ethics throughout its publication history:
- IJCSM does not charge any publication fees from the authors
- IJCSM treats all submitted articles equally
- All cases submitted at IJCSM are double-blind, peer-reviewed professionally. The editorial team's decision on a paper largely depends upon the reviewers' comments and their recommendations. A third reviewer's evaluation is sought when no clear decision has emerged from the first two reviewers' reports. IJCSM maintains confidentiality of reviewers' identities at all times.
- Authorships are limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the work
- IJCSM never publishes any plagiarised work and takes the matter very seriously. In case of plagiarism, the concerned author is notified, and he/she is barred from any future submission.
- Self-plagiarism is not condoned either. An author cannot submit essentially the same materials which have been published elsewhere
- It is highly unethical to submit an article concurrently to more than one journal
- The authors must not infringe any copyright. While preparing the paper, if any copyrighted materials are used, it is the author's responsibility to seek permission from the copyright owners. Any breach of copyright will result in the retraction of the published paper
- In the reviewing process, if any reviewer finds a conflict of interest, he/she will not be reviewing the manuscript and will return the manuscript to the IJCSM desk
Publication Ethics Statement
The IIUM Journal of Case Studies in Management (IJCSM), published by the Kulliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia, is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. This document outlines the roles and responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers, in alignment with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and best practices in scholarly publishing. It also provides a statement against publication malpractice.
- Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
1.1 Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. The submission of plagiarised or self-plagiarised content is strictly prohibited. Any materials or data from other sources must be properly cited.
1.2 Multiple or Concurrent Submissions
It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Authors must wait for the editorial decision before submitting the paper elsewhere.
1.3 Authorship and Acknowledgment
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the study. All contributors must be acknowledged. Ghost authorship and guest authorship are unethical.
1.4 Data Integrity and Availability
Authors must present accurate data and disclose any conflicts of interest. Raw data should be made available for editorial review if requested.
1.5 Citations and References
Authors must properly cite all sources and ensure that references are complete and accurate.
- Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
2.1 Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. They must not disclose or discuss it with others except as authorized by the editor.
2.2 Objectivity and Constructive Criticism
Reviews should be conducted objectively, and critiques should be constructive, without personal criticism of the author.
2.3 Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if there is any conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or the content of the manuscript.
2.4 Timeliness
Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the given timeframe. If unable to do so, they should notify the editor promptly.
- Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
3.1 Editorial Independence
Editors are responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of manuscripts, based on reviewers’ evaluations and the relevance of the work.
3.2 Fair Play
Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on academic merit, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
3.3 Confidentiality
Editors must ensure the confidentiality of the submitted manuscripts and the identities of authors and reviewers.
3.4 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without the author’s written consent.
- Responsibilities of the Publisher
4.1 Transparency and Integrity
The Kulliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences at IIUM, as the publisher, ensures that all publication practices comply with ethical standards and COPE guidelines.
4.2 Financial Support and Open Access
IJCSM does not charge any publication fees. All costs are fully borne by the Kulliyyah through its allocated budget, reinforcing its commitment to accessible and ethical scholarly communication.
4.3 Dealing with Misconduct
The publisher supports editors in investigating and resolving any allegations of research misconduct, including plagiarism, data falsification, and ethical violations.
- Publication Malpractice Statement
IJCSM takes all forms of publication malpractice seriously and will not tolerate:
Plagiarism or self-plagiarism
Fabrication or falsification of data
Misrepresentation of authorship
Redundant or duplicate publication
Breaches of copyright
Failure to disclose conflicts of interest
Unethical conduct in human or animal research
Cases of misconduct will be investigated thoroughly. Sanctions may include rejection or retraction of the article, blacklisting of the authors from future submissions, and notification to relevant institutions.
- Complaint and Appeals Process
Any complaints or appeals regarding editorial decisions or ethical violations can be directed to the Editor-in-Chief via the official IJCSM contact email. Complaints will be investigated with confidentiality and impartiality, and appropriate corrective measures will be taken.
- Commitment to Ethical Publishing
IJCSM is dedicated to ethical publishing grounded in Islamic values of trust (amanah), justice ('adl), and excellence (ihsan). By adhering to international best practices and COPE guidelines, IJCSM ensures scholarly integrity and contributes to the global body of ethical academic research.
- Editorial decision-making
The editorial decision-making process at the IIUM Journal of Case Studies in Management (IJCSM) is structured to uphold academic integrity, transparency, fairness, and the highest ethical standards. Below is a step-by-step breakdown of the process, including the roles of the editorial team, reviewers, and decision criteria:
- Manuscript Submission
Initial Submission Platform: Manuscripts are submitted through the official IJCSM submission portal or email, depending on the journal’s standard operating procedures.
Compliance Check: The Managing Editor first checks if the manuscript complies with the journal’s scope (management case studies), formatting guidelines, language quality, and ethical declarations (e.g., originality and no simultaneous submission).
b.Plagiarism Screening
Similarity Check Tool: A plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate) is used.
Threshold Policy: Manuscripts with similarity indices exceeding an acceptable threshold (typically 15–20%) are rejected outright or returned for revision.
Self-plagiarism: Duplicate or redundant publication by the same author is flagged and treated seriously.
c.Initial Editorial Review
Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor evaluates:
Relevance to IJCSM’s scope (case-based, management-focused)
Contribution to knowledge or practice
Coherence and clarity of case narrative
Compliance with ethical standards
Desk Rejection Possibility: If the manuscript lacks originality, academic merit, or proper structure, it may be desk rejected without proceeding to peer review.
d.Double-Blind Peer Review Process
Reviewer Assignment: Two qualified reviewers are invited based on subject matter expertise. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa.
Reviewer Guidelines: Reviewers assess based on:
Case novelty and teaching/research value
Contextual relevance and accuracy
Rigor in analysis, discussion, and recommendations
Ethical soundness (e.g., permissions, consent in cases)
Review Outcomes:
Accept without revision
Accept with minor revisions
Major revisions needed
Reject
e.Evaluation of Reviewer Reports
Handling Editor Decision:
If both reviewers agree (e.g., minor revisions), the editor follows the recommendation.
If one reviewer accepts and the other rejects, a third reviewer is appointed.
Editor may override the reviewers only with strong justification (documented).
Confidentiality: Reviewer identities are not disclosed to the author at any stage.
f.Revision and Resubmission
Authors’ Response Document: Authors are expected to revise the manuscript and provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
Editor Checks Revisions: The editor assesses whether the revisions address concerns adequately. For major revisions, the manuscript may be sent back to reviewers.
g.Final Decision
Final Decision Options:
Accept
Accept with final editorial polishing
Reject (with explanation and feedback)
Communication: Authors are informed of the decision with reviewer comments (anonymized) and editorial notes.
h.Copyediting and Proofing
Once accepted:
Manuscript undergoes copyediting for grammar, formatting, and style.
Proofs are sent to authors for final checking.
Final version is uploaded to the journal website or included in the upcoming issue.
i.Publication
Open Access Model: IJCSM is fully open access, and there are no publication fees. All costs are covered by the Kulliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences.
Indexing and Archiving: Published manuscripts are indexed in selected databases and archived for long-term accessibility.
- Ethical Safeguards and Misconduct Protocol
Misconduct Investigations: If a reviewer, editor, or reader reports misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, falsified data), the editorial team investigates, informs the authors, and may retract the paper.
Corrections and Retractions: IJCSM follows COPE’s flowcharts on corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.
Appeals: Authors may appeal a decision by submitting a written justification to the Editor-in-Chief, who will initiate a review process by independent editors.
IJCSM’s editorial decision-making process reflects:
Academic integrity
Islamic values of amanah (trust), adl (justice), and ihsan (excellence)
International publishing best practices (e.g., COPE, WAME, DOAJ)
This process ensures that every manuscript is treated fairly, ethically, and rigorously to maintain the journal’s scholarly reputation.
- Procedures for Handling Misconduct
The International Journal of Case Studies in Management (IJCSM) upholds the highest standards of academic integrity and strictly follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to identify, investigate, and resolve allegations of publication misconduct. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, redundant publication, authorship manipulation, and unethical research conduct.
- Identification
Misconduct may be identified at any stage of the publication process, including:
During peer review: Through similarity checks (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate) or peer feedback.
Post-publication: Through whistleblowing, reader alerts, or author retractions.
- Preliminary Assessment
Once a potential misconduct case is reported or detected:
The Editor-in-Chief will perform an initial confidential assessment.
The aim is to verify whether the complaint has sufficient merit to proceed.
If the claim appears unsubstantiated or due to a misunderstanding, clarification may be sought informally with the authors.
- Formal Investigation
If preliminary findings support further inquiry:
The Editor-in-Chief notifies the corresponding author and requests a formal written response to the allegations.
Co-authors, where appropriate, may also be contacted.
If required, an independent ethics committee or external expert may assist in the investigation.
- Decision and Corrective Actions
After reviewing all evidence:
If misconduct is confirmed, IJCSM may take any of the following actions:
Reject the manuscript at any stage of review.
Retract the article if already published, with a formal retraction notice citing reasons.
Notify the authors’ institutions or funding bodies of the findings.
Issue a public statement of concern if an article's integrity is questionable but cannot be definitively resolved.
Temporarily or permanently ban the author(s) from future submissions.
- Transparency and Confidentiality
A retraction or correction notice will be publicly issued with a clear explanation.
All investigations will be handled confidentially, impartially, and fairly.
The names of individuals involved will not be disclosed publicly unless necessary for accountability or required by law.
- Author Responsibilities in Case Studies
Authors submitting case studies to IJCSM carry unique ethical obligations due to the real-world nature of such contributions. The journal expects all authors to:
- Ensure Factual Accuracy and Authenticity
Authors must present case facts truthfully without fabrication, falsification, or distortion.
Data, events, and stakeholder roles must reflect actual occurrences, unless explicitly fictionalized for educational purposes.
- Obtain Informed Consent
Permission must be secured from all organizations, companies, individuals, or clients involved.
When working with sensitive cases or vulnerable populations, informed consent must be obtained in writing and documented.
- Anonymization and Confidentiality
Unless prior consent is granted for disclosure, sensitive names, logos, or identifiers should be anonymized to protect privacy.
Exceptions must be justified and accompanied by documented approval.
- Ethical Conduct and Fair Representation
Authors must avoid any form of exploitation, misrepresentation, or power imbalance in presenting or collecting case data.
All contributors (including research assistants, interviewers, data providers) must be acknowledged appropriately.
- Clarity Between Facts and Interpretation
A clear distinction must be maintained between factual case details, the authors’ analysis, and any associated teaching notes or pedagogical interpretations.
- Declaration of Interests
Any conflicts of interest, whether financial or relational, must be disclosed to maintain transparency and avoid bias.
- Conflict Resolution Protocols
IJCSM is committed to resolving all disputes fairly, professionally, and in accordance with academic ethics. Conflict resolution protocols are available for the following scenarios:
- Author vs. Reviewer Disagreements
If an author disagrees with a reviewer’s decision, they may submit a formal rebuttal letter detailing their justification.
The Editor-in-Chief may:
Reassess the manuscript personally.
Consult an additional independent reviewer not previously involved in the review process.
Make a final editorial decision based on merit and evidence.
- Reviewer vs. Editor Concerns
Reviewers who believe their recommendations were disregarded without justification may raise their concerns to the Associate Editor or Editorial Board.
The board may review editorial practices and recommend training or adjustments if warranted.
- Allegations of Misconduct (Cross-Party)
In any case involving allegations of ethical violations (see Section 9), the same rigorous procedure applies.
All parties will be informed of the process and given an opportunity to respond.
- Editorial Conflicts
If conflicts arise within the editorial team (e.g., editor-author conflicts, co-editor disputes), the matter will be:
Escalated to the Senior Editorial Board or Editorial Advisory Board.
Mediated by a neutral party not involved in the dispute.
Resolved in line with the journal’s commitment to fairness and COPE’s ethical guidelines.
- Fairness and Final Resolution
All individuals involved in a conflict are entitled to:
Present their case and evidence.
Receive a response or explanation in a timely and respectful manner.
IJCSM strives to ensure that all resolutions uphold the principles of academic freedom, ethical integrity, and publication transparency.
