Guidelines for Reviewers

Responsibility of Peer Reviewer

As a peer reviewer, you are entrusted with the important task of carefully examining and assessing manuscripts within your area of expertise. Your role is to provide valuable insights and constructive feedback to the author, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the manuscript's strength and quality. By delving into the strengths and weaknesses of the article, you contribute to its overall improvement and offer an objective evaluation of its relevance and authenticity.


Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Is the article requested to be reviewed in accordance with your expertise? If you are given a script that delves into subjects that fall outside your realm of expertise, please promptly inform the editor. Additionally, feel free to recommend another reviewer who may be better suited for the task.
  • Are you available to review this paper? The review must be finalized within a span of two weeks and if you require more time, kindly notify the editor in a timely manner or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there any potential conflict of interest? Although conflicts of interest will not preclude you from being a reviewer, it is important to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editor before conducting a review. If you have any concerns about potential conflicts of interest, please reach out to the editor office without hesitation.

Review Process:

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

  • Title: is it clearly stated?
  • Abstract: does it reflect the contents of the article?
  • Introduction: Does the author accurately describe and clearly state the problem under consideration? The introduction should provide a comprehensive overview of the pertinent research and present the results or other applicable findings for discussion. Additionally, the research should elucidate the experiments, hypotheses, and methods utilized.
  • Reviewer must incorporate comments of at least 200 words in the review form

Content of the Article

Is this paper original and appropriate for publication in the journal? A thorough check for plagiarism using reliable tools that can reveal any potential similarities with other works shall be used.

  • If the study had been previously done by other authors, it is still eligible for publication?
  • Is the article is fairly new, fairly deep, and interesting to be published?
  • Does it contribute to knowledge?
  • Does the article adhere to the standards of the journal?
  • Scope - Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?

Method
Comprehensive and perfect:

  • Does the author accurately describe how the data is collected?
  • Is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriate for this study?
  • Is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question?
  • Is there decent enough information for you to imitate the research?
  • Are there any new methods? If there is a new method, does the author explain it in details?
  • Is there any appropriate sampling?
  • Have the tools and materials used been adequately explained? and
  • Does the article exposure describe what type of data is recorded; right in describing the measurement?

Results:

This is where the author is required to thoroughly articulate the findings of their research. It is crucial that the presentation is well-structured and follows a logical flow. It is important to assess if the analysis conducted is appropriate, including the use of statistical methods. If you have suggestions for more applicable statistical tools for this study, please bring it to attention. Furthermore, any interpretation of the findings can be excluded from this section.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  • Are the claims in this section is supported by the fair results and quite reasonable?
  • Does the author compare the research results with other previous ones?
  • Do the results of research written in the article contradict the previous theories?
  • Does the conclusion explain how a better scientific research to be followed-up?

Tables and Pictures:

Is it suitable with the referred explanation by showing data which is easy to to interprete and understandable for the readers?

Writing Styles

  • Authors must be critical mostly to the literature systematic review of the issues, which is relevant to the field of study.
  • Reviews should be focused on a single topic.
  • All exposure should be in English and written in a god and coherent grammar.
  • Easy to understand
  • Interesting to read

Things that need to be considered:

  • A distinct perspective that encompasses a vast array of experiences and situations, this unique viewpoint delves into the complex issues surrounding marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control systems, management information systems, international business, business economics, business ethics, sustainability, and entrepreneurship.

Originality Research

  • The data and testing should be presented in a way that showcases a novel approach to enhancing systems, processes, and tool accuracy.
  • By conducting research and observational analysis, it is crucial to determine the practicality, impact, and incorporation of the research findings. This applies to a wide range of topics such as marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operations management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control systems, management information systems, international business, business economics, business ethics and sustainability, and entrepreneurship.
  • This case study delves into the current state of various aspects of business management such as marketing, finance, strategy, operations, human resources, e-business, knowledge, accounting, control systems, information systems, international business, economics, ethics, sustainability, and entrepreneurship. Through its insights and conclusions, the paper also draws attention to potential future challenges that can be valuable lessons learned.

Reference

  • First Person (Interview)
  • Book Reviews
  • Insight Technology (Product Review)

Final Review

  • All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential
  • If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor
  • Do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical issues:
  • Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please let the editor knows the details
  • Fraud: It is very difficult to detect a fraud catogory, but if you suspect the results in the article is not true, please inform the editor
  • Complete "The Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.
  • When you write a comment, please show the part of the comment that is only intended for the editor and parts that can be returned to the author.
  • Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter