About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Binus Business Review (BBR) provides an academic forum for lecturers, researchers, practitioners, and postgraduate students to publish empirical and multidisciplinary studies in the fields of business and management. The journal welcomes a wide range of research topics, including operations, corporate governance, marketing, and related areas. All empirical research methods—qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and mixed methods—are equally encouraged and accepted

Peer Review Process

To maintain a high standard of publication quality, every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes the following review process

  1. Desk review:  Each submission is first assessed by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal’s formatting and writing guidelines.

  2. Plagiarism Screening: Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are subjected to a plagiarism check using Turnitin. The maximum acceptable similarity index is 15%.

  3. Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the plagiarism screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers through a double-blind peer review process. During this stage, the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, and the authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities. Reviewers may be members of the Editorial Board or external experts invited by the Editors.

  4. Editorial Decision: Most submissions receive an editorial decision within 8 to 16 weeks from the date of submission.

  5. Review Duration: Each reviewer is allocated a maximum of one month to complete their review before returning the manuscript to the Editor for further consideration.

Publication Frequency

Binus Business Review is an international journal published on a triannual basis, in March, July, and November

Open Access Policy

Binus Business Review provides immediate open access to all published content. This policy is founded on the principle that freely accessible research fosters a broader and more equitable global exchange of knowledge.

Publication Ethics

Our commitment to publication ethics

BINUS Journals are committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, and responsible scholarly communication. Authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher share responsibility for ensuring that scholarly work is conducted and published honestly, fairly, and responsibly.

This policy is informed by the principles and Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), alongside applicable institutional policies, national regulations, and relevant disciplinary standards. It applies to manuscripts submitted to and content published by the journal.


1. Responsibilities of Authors

1.1 Originality and plagiarism

Authors must submit original work that is not under consideration by another journal. All ideas, words, data, figures, tables, and other material taken from other sources must be appropriately acknowledged and cited. Plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, and inappropriate reuse of previously published material are unacceptable.

The journal may use similarity-checking software. A similarity score is not, by itself, a determination of plagiarism; the editorial team considers the nature, extent, context, and attribution of overlapping text or material.

1.2 Authorship and contributorship

Authorship must reflect substantial scholarly contributions. All listed authors must approve the final manuscript, agree to its submission, and accept accountability for their contributions and the integrity of the work. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should be acknowledged appropriately, with permission where necessary.

Gift, ghost, and honorary authorship, as well as the omission of eligible contributors, are unacceptable. Changes to authorship after submission require a valid explanation, agreement from all affected authors, and editorial approval.

1.3 Accuracy and research integrity

Authors must report methods, data, analyses, and findings accurately and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, deceptive image manipulation, misleading reporting, and deliberate concealment of information that materially affects the interpretation of results are unacceptable. Methods should be described in sufficient detail to support appropriate evaluation and verification.

1.4 Citations and prior dissemination

Authors must cite relevant sources accurately and must not manipulate citations to inflate citation metrics. Unnecessary self-citation, coercive citation, and citation cartels are unacceptable. Any substantial overlap with preprints, conference papers, theses, reports, or other publicly available material must be disclosed so the editor can assess its acceptability.

1.5 Funding and conflicts of interest

Authors must disclose relevant funding, grants, institutional support, and actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest. These may include financial, professional, personal, institutional, or commercial relationships that could influence the research or its presentation. Where required, authors should explicitly state that no conflicts of interest exist.

1.6 Data availability and retention

Authors must retain research records in accordance with applicable institutional, legal, ethical, and funder requirements. Where appropriate and ethically permissible, authors should make supporting data or materials available for verification. Data sharing must respect participant consent, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property rights, and applicable law. If data cannot be shared, authors should explain the restriction where appropriate.


2. Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical standards, institutional requirements, and relevant national regulations. Authors are responsible for ensuring that participants' rights, safety, dignity, privacy, and welfare are protected.

2.1 Ethics committee approval

Where required by applicable regulations, institutional policies, or the nature of the study, authors must obtain approval from an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review board before conducting the research. The manuscript must identify the approving body and provide the approval reference or number where applicable.

Authors must state whether ethics approval was obtained, was not required, or was formally waived or exempted. Claims of exemption or non-requirement must be justified and supported by an institutional or ethics committee determination where applicable. Authors must not claim retrospective approval that was never granted.

2.2 Informed consent

Authors must explain how informed consent was obtained from participants where applicable. Consent must be voluntary and appropriately informed, and should be obtained before participation unless a valid exception has been approved or permitted under applicable ethical requirements. Any waiver of consent must be justified and, where required, approved by the relevant ethics committee.

2.3 Privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality

Authors must explain how participants' privacy and confidentiality were protected. Identifying details should be removed or safeguarded unless disclosure is ethically justified and appropriately authorised. Authors must obtain consent for publication when required, particularly where individuals may be identifiable from quotations, photographs, recordings, case details, or other information.

2.4 Children and vulnerable participants

Research involving children or other vulnerable populations must include safeguards appropriate to the participants and study. Parental or guardian permission, participant assent, additional consent procedures, and measures to minimise risk must be provided where required.

2.5 Interviews, surveys, observations, and publicly available information

Studies involving interviews, surveys, experiments, observations, recordings, photographs, or other human-subject data must explain the relevant consent, privacy, and confidentiality procedures. Public accessibility alone does not automatically mean that information may be used or republished without ethical consideration. Authors must assess the source, context, sensitivity, identifiability, and intended use of the information.

Where relevant to the discipline, authors must also comply with applicable clinical trial registration or other research registration requirements.


3. Research Involving Animals

Research involving animals must comply with applicable legislation, institutional requirements, and recognised animal-welfare standards. Where required, authors must provide the name of the approving animal ethics committee and the approval reference. Manuscripts should describe measures taken to minimise pain, distress, and harm and to ensure humane treatment.


4. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Authors must comply with the journal's applicable policy on generative artificial intelligence (AI). AI tools must not be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scholarly work. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical acceptability of all submitted content.

Where required by the journal, authors must disclose the use of AI tools in writing, analysis, image generation, or other relevant research activities, identifying the tool and explaining its role. AI must not be used to fabricate data, invent references, misrepresent findings, or create deceptive images. Authors must verify AI-assisted content and respect confidentiality, privacy, copyright, and other applicable requirements.


5. Responsibilities of Editors

5.1 Fair and independent decisions

Editors must assess manuscripts fairly and impartially on their scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with ethical requirements. Decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, commercial interests, citation targets, or inappropriate institutional pressure.

5.2 Confidentiality

Editors must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer reports, author information, and editorial correspondence. Unpublished information must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed to unauthorised individuals.

5.3 Conflicts of interest

Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where impartiality may reasonably be compromised. An appropriate alternative editor should be appointed when necessary.

5.4 Ethical screening and misconduct

Editors must ensure appropriate editorial assessment and peer review. Screening should consider scope, originality, research integrity, ethics approval where applicable, consent, confidentiality, and conflicts of interest. Editors must take concerns about plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate publication, authorship manipulation, and other possible misconduct seriously and handle them fairly and confidentially, following applicable COPE guidance and journal procedures.


6. Responsibilities of Reviewers

6.1 Objective and timely assessment

Reviewers must provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and timely assessments of manuscripts within their expertise. Reviews should address relevant scholarly and methodological issues. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.

6.2 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and related materials as confidential. They must not share or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable research data to external AI systems or third-party services where this could breach confidentiality, privacy, copyright, or journal policy.

6.3 Conflicts of interest and research integrity

Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline a review if a conflict cannot be appropriately managed. They must not appropriate authors' ideas or data. Suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, unethical research, or substantial undisclosed overlap should be reported confidentially to the editor.


7. Complaints and Appeals

The journal accepts complaints concerning editorial decisions, peer review, publication practices, authorship, research integrity, and the conduct of parties involved in publication. Complaints should be sent to the journal's official editorial contact and include sufficient information for assessment.

Complaints will be considered fairly, impartially, and confidentially. Appeals should explain substantive grounds, such as a material misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or relevant information that was not adequately considered. Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not guarantee reconsideration. Where appropriate, the editor may consult independent experts, the publisher, or the relevant institution.


8. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Discussion

The journal welcomes evidence-based reports of concerns about published work. Readers should identify the publication and provide sufficient information for the editorial team to evaluate the concern.

Where reliable evidence indicates a significant error, misleading information, or research misconduct, the journal may publish a correction, clarification, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice. Notices should be transparent, linked to the affected article, and explain the reason for the action. Authors are expected to cooperate when a significant error in their published work is identified.

Authors must respect copyright, intellectual property rights, and applicable licensing requirements. Material reproduced from other sources must be attributed, and permission must be obtained where required. The journal's specific copyright, licensing, and open-access arrangements are described in its respective policies.


10. Publisher Responsibilities

The publisher supports editorial independence, research integrity, and the consistent implementation of publication ethics policies. The publisher must not improperly interfere with editorial decisions. When credible evidence of serious ethical violations arises, the publisher will work with the editorial team to determine appropriate action, which may include investigating concerns, preserving records, correcting the scholarly record, or contacting relevant institutions where justified.


11. Actions in Cases of Ethical Violations

When an ethical violation is suspected or established, the journal will assess the circumstances, seriousness, available evidence, and applicable policies before deciding on a response. Possible actions include requesting clarification or documentation, rejecting a submission, suspending consideration, contacting a relevant institution, publishing a correction or expression of concern, retracting an article, or restricting future submissions where justified.

Actions will be proportionate to the circumstances and consistent with applicable ethical guidance and institutional or legal requirements. A suspected violation will not automatically be treated as proven misconduct.


12. Contact the Editorial Office

To ask a question about this policy or report a publication ethics concern, contact the editorial office through the journal's official website. Reports should provide enough detail for the concern to be assessed. The journal will handle such reports with appropriate care, fairness, and confidentiality.


Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship and Contributorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. 

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.


Complaint & Appeals

This journal has a well-defined process for managing grievances lodged against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be thoroughly explained to the concerned individual regarding the nature of the complaint. The scope of complaints covers any issue related to the journal's operational procedures, such as the editorial process, unethical citation practices, biased editors/reviewers, peer-review tampering, and so on. The complaint cases will be handled in compliance with COPE's guidelines.

Discussions & Corrections

<This journal welcomes post-publication discussions and corrections from readers regarding published articles. If a reader wishes to provide discussions and corrections, they can contact the Editor in Chief via email and explain their feedback. If the Editor in Chief accepts the discussions and corrections. The authors of the original article are allowed to reply to the discussions and corrections by sending their response to the Editor in Chief and inform the response of the readers.


Advertising & Marketing Policy

Advertising Policy. At present, Lingua Cultura Journals does not publish any commercial advertisements for revenue.

Marketing Policy. Any direct marketing activities, including solicitation of manuscripts conducted on behalf of the publisher and journal, shall be appropriate, well-targeted, and unobtrusive. Information provided about the publisher or journal is expected to be truthful and not misleading for readers or authors.

Journal Indexing and Abstracting

Binus Business Review has been covered by the following services:

1. SINTA (S2)
2. Google Scholar
3. Indonesia OneSearch
4. GARUDA
4. DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
5. Dimensions
6. ASEAN Citation Index
7. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine
8. WorldCat
9. ISJD Neo
10. Jisc

Archiving Policy

Our journal adopted the concept of LOCKSS and CLOCKSS archives, in which the softcopy of our journal will be sent to Garuda and Indonesia OneSearch

Article Processing Charge

Binus Business Review applies an Article Processing Charge (APC) to cover the costs associated with the publication process. The APC is IDR 2,000,000 per accepted manuscript. 

Payment Information:

  • Bank Name: Bank Central Asia, cabang Bina Nusantara
  • Account Name: Univ Bina Nusantara
  • Account No: 5271706678

Authors are requested to send proof of payment (wire transfer receipt) via email to epangputri@binus.edu or bbr@binus.edu

The APC covers the costs associated with the editorial and peer review processes, DOI registration, professional article production in both digital and print formats, and the dissemination of published works. There are no submission fees, and no charges apply to rejected manuscripts.

The APC is waived for first authors affiliated with institutions outside Indonesia (international authors) and for faculty members of Bina Nusantara University. The APC is non-refundable for articles withdrawn after acceptance or retracted due to research or publication misconduct. All publication fee policies are designed to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to open-access publishing standards

Sponsors

Binus Business School and Faculty of Economic and Communication with Forum Manajemen Indonesia

Journal History

Binus Business Review History

Binus Business Review (BBR) was established in 2010 as a scholarly journal published by Bina Nusantara University. Initially, the journal served as an internal publication platform for the University's academic community, enabling lecturers to disseminate their research findings. Over the years, BBR has evolved into an internationally oriented, peer-reviewed journal through continuous improvements in publication quality, editorial policies, internationalization, and indexing.

2010
Binus Business Review was launched as a biannual journal, publishing two issues annually in May and November. The inaugural issue, published in May 2010, contained 24 articles, followed by the second issue in November 2010 with 28 articles.

2011
The journal maintained its biannual publication schedule. The May 2011 issue published 55 articles, while the November issue included 43 articles, reflecting increasing research contributions from the University's academic community.

2012
BBR continued its biannual publication frequency, publishing 53 articles in the May issue and 35 articles in the November issue.

2013
The journal maintained its established publication schedule, featuring 50 articles in the May issue and 30 articles in the November issue.

2014
Binus Business Review continued publishing two issues per year, with 40 articles appearing in the May issue and 22 articles in the November issue.

2015

A significant milestone was achieved when Binus Business Review expanded beyond an internal institutional publication to become a national scholarly journal. During this year, the journal published its first article authored by an international researcher, marking the beginning of its internationalization efforts.

To accommodate the growing number of submissions, BBR increased its publication frequency from two to three issues per year, published in May, August, and November, with each issue containing 15 articles.

In the same year, the journal was successfully indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), ResearchBib (Academic Resource Index), and Google Scholar, enhancing its visibility and accessibility within the global scholarly community.

2016
Binus Business Review initiated its transformation toward becoming an international scholarly journal by strengthening its editorial standards and actively recruiting international editors, reviewers, and authors. Beginning in 2016, the journal accepted English-language manuscripts exclusively, reinforcing its commitment to international academic communication

2017

The journal was submitted for evaluation to the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (RistekDIKTI) for national accreditation.

During the same year, BBR was also indexed in Microsoft Academic, the ASEAN Citation Index (ACI), and Neliti, further expanding its academic visibility and discoverability

2018
Binus Business Review was awarded SINTA 2 accreditation by RistekDIKTI, recognizing the journal's quality, editorial standards, and contribution to scholarly publishing in Indonesia.

2019
To improve manuscript quality and editorial consistency, BBR introduced comprehensive and detailed Author Guidelines. These guidelines standardized manuscript preparation, submission procedures, ethical requirements, and reporting standards, thereby enhancing the quality and consistency of submitted manuscripts.

2021
The journal refined its Aims and Scope to strengthen its identity as a specialized journal in business and management research. Since 2021, BBR has focused on publishing high-quality research in areas including, but not limited to, management, accounting, finance, economics, entrepreneurship, marketing, operations management, information systems, corporate governance, business strategy, and related interdisciplinary fields. The revised scope has been applied to all manuscripts submitted from 2021 onward.