Journal of Mixed Methods Studies

e-ISSN: 2717-6843
JOMES Peer Review Policy



All manuscripts should be sent electronically via the journal’s official Online Manuscript Center (click here to reach ). In order to send a manuscript, authors should be register through the web site.

Scientific results of a research can have comprehensive implications for invidividuals and community. Therefore,   any manuscripts submited to Journal of Mixed Methods Studies (JOMES) undergo a process of “Peer   Review” before they are accepted and published. Our referees who are experts in the field of all related science areas play a vital role in maintaining the high standards for JOMES and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation

















When a manuscript is submitted to JOMES, it first undergoes a preliminary check known as a desk review. The   Administrative Editor first evaluates all manuscripts submitted to journal. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript or an invited paper to be accepted at this stage by Editor-in Chief.

Manuscript that do not follow the format specified by the journal will be rejected at this stage are;

Inappropriate to JOMES Guidelines (i.e. Manuscript format is not appropriate),
Lack of originality, novelty, or significance (i.e. Results that are not generalizable,
• Mismatch with the aims and scope of the journal (i.e. Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s  readership)
Have poor grammar or English language
Flaws in study design (i.e. Choice of a weak or unreliable method)
Poor Writing and Organization (i.e. insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study, inadequate   description of methods)

Manuscripts that follow the following criteria will be reviewed:

The review criteria for empirical research include:

  • Noteworthiness of the problem
  • Theoretical framework
  •  Fit of questions to mixed methods design
  •  Mixed methods design
  •  Mixed methods sampling
  •  Mixed methods analysis and integration
  •  Insightfulness of discussion
  •  Writing quality
  •  Quality of conclusions
  •  Contribution to mixed methods literature
  •  Interest to JOMES readership

The review criteria for methodological/theoretical discussions include:

  • Addresses an important topic
  • Adequacy of the literature
  • Soundness of the argument
  • Originality of the suggestions
  • Writing quality
  • Contribution to mixed methods literature
  • Interest to JOMES readership

Field / Section Editor



Field/Section Editor initially assigned to a submission by an Editor. Filed/Section Editors manage the Review Process of submissions of those that are accepted. Editors send requests to Field/Section Editors to see a submission through the editorial process. Submissions to the JOMES that are assigned to the Section Editor by the Editor appear in that Section Editor's Submissions In Review queue. Section Editors have access to only those submissions to which they have been assigned. Section Editors can reject or assign reviewers to manuscript submitted to JOMES.

Type of Peer Review


JOMES employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the review process. Therefore, it is very important, all the manuscript files (including any supplemental Files for Review) has to be anonymized to allow for blinded review? Author/s should remove personal information especially names from the main documents.

How the referee is selected 


Referees are chosen by the editors or by field/ section editors or members of the editorial board to whom the task has been delegated. Field/Section editors are responsible for assigning manuscripts to reviewers. Reviewers are matched to the manuscripts according to their expertise. JOMES journal management system allows field editors to choose from our database or add new referees.

Referee reports 






















Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript meets the criteria under the following dimension:
1. Presentation
1.1. General Readability.
1.2. Organization and Efficiency,
1.3. Focus/Clarity of Expression,
1.4. Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation,
1.5. APA 6 Format (citation in text, references, tables and APA Statistical Abbreviations.
2. Introduction to manuscript
• Appropriateness of Title,
• Structured Abstract,
• Rationale for Study and Design,
• Research Question Identified both for qualitative and quantitative parts,
• Pertinent Literature Reviewed,
• Recent Literature Reviewed Organized and Focused,
• Recent Research Reviewed and Critiqued in Article.
3. Methodology
3.1. Appropriateness of Research Design
• Description of mixed method research approach selected,
• Rationale for mixed method research approach selected,
3.2. Research Sample/Study Group (described in detail, size justified)
• Quantitative and qualitative research participants & setting (described in detail: who, where, and why).
3.3. Research Instruments (valid and reliable)
• Quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures (described in detail: role of the researcher, relationship with participants, researcher’s interest in research topic).
3.4. Procedures
3.5. Data Analysis (Discussion of Statistical analysis and Qualitative data)

• Quantitative Data Analysis
• Qualitative Data Analysis (thoroughness and depth trustworthiness)
4. Results
• Using text and visual aids properly,
• Interpreting results,
• Using headings and sub-headings,
• Using language of reporting appropriately,
• Referring to tables and figures correctly.
5. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation
• Results Compared with relevant Literature,
• Conclusion Drawn Logically,
• Implications for Practice,
• Directions for Research,
• Identification Themes/Patterns
• Evidence of Depth and Detail in Narrative of the findings

6. Relevance & Significance
• Significant Results or Conclusion,
• Relevant and Useful Recommendations,
• Timely of Interest to the Audience of this Journal,
• Value for an International Readership,
• Contribution to the Field,

How long does the review process take? 




The time required for the review process is mainly dependent on the response of the referees. The Review process normally takes 3 to 8 months to complete depending on the number of rounds the reviews need to take place. Please do expect slight delay if the review period overlaps with a long holiday or Summer/Winter break.
All manuscripts submitted for publication in JOMES will undergo rigorous peer review, based on an initial editor screening and then a blind review process by at least two anonymous referees. The section editors usually choose the reviewers from the journal reviewer pool. Normally, the editor will seek reviewer’s feedback before considering the authors’ submission for publication. In that case, the Editor will wait until he/she receives all reviewer comments on submission. If the reviewer’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought? In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee’s report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee’s report.

Final report



The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Recommended actions:
Accept: no revision needed,
Accept: minor revision needed,
Major revision needed: Suggest revision and resubmission
Reject: (Provide reasons in the comments to the editors and authors)

Editor’s Decision is final

Based on the Reviewers report Section Editors advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Becoming a referee for JOMES




If you are not currently a referee for JOMES but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the Editor. The benefits of refereeing for JOMES include the opportunity to read see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation.