Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

The submissions are first reviewed by the editor in chief with the help of an editorial member who has knowledge in the relevant management/business discipline. Then if it is not desk rejected, it is sent to two reviewers for double blind review. Depending on the recommendation of the reviewers (major/minor corrections or rejection) the authors are requested to submit a revision; reviewers’ comments are supplemented, if needed, by the editor in chief or an editor with knowledge in the area of the study. The revised submission is checked against the reviewer/editorial comments by an editor with knowledge in the area of study and if the revisions are acceptable, the paper is accepted for publication.

Reviewer Guidelines:

Reviewers will be asked to complete the following information about each manuscript.

Title of the Manuscript:    

Name of the Reviewer:

Please comment on the following aspects of the manuscript. Please be kind enough to justify/elaborate your major comments. Please use as much space you need in typing the comments under each section.

1.    Introduction
[Clearly identified, interesting and timely research issue; clearly indicated aim; impressive introduction]

2.    Theory and Literature
[Sufficient review of existing literature, appropriate use of theory(ies), sound theoretical framework, clearly defined concepts, proper flow of arguments, hypotheses/propositions sufficiently and appropriately supported by literature and flowing from theory or observations (if applicable), clear logic behind the hypotheses/propositions(if applicable), operationalization of variables (if applicable)]

3.    Conceptualization/Theory development (Conceptual/Theoretical papers only)
[Plausible conceptualizations and logical relationships (if applicable), sound base of theory and literature, sufficient conceptual/theoretical extensions to existing knowledge, clear argumentation]

4.    Methods (Empirical and Review papers only)
[In both empirical and review papers: Justification of research approach and methods for achieving study objectives]
[In Empirical papers: Specification of statistical models (if applicable), justification of sample, data collection methods and analytical tools, ensuring quality and trustworthiness of the study (validity, reliability etc. as appropriate for the selected approach)]

5.    Analysis, Findings and Discussion (Empirical papers only)
[Correct use of analytical techniques, reporting results in an understandable way, addressing alternative explanations in the analysis, adequate discussion of results in relation to previous literature]

6.    Contribution
[Novel and value-added contribution to existing research, discussion of implications for scholarly and practicing community, stimulating thought or debate]

7.    Title of the Manuscript
[Appropriateness for the study; if not appropriate, your suggestion for revision]

8.    Abstract of the Manuscript
[Accurate reflection of the content, sufficient coverage of the study]

9.    Keywords
[Accurate and sufficient reflection of the content]

10.    Use of Language and Scholarly Presentation
[Clear communication, maintaining proper standard of writing, whether language editing is required]

Further comments (if any):

Please mark your overall evaluation by underlining the selected response:
Based on the overall evaluation of the manuscript, it is
(1)    Acceptable as it is
(2)    Acceptable with minor revisions as suggested
(3)    Acceptable subject to major revision as suggested
(4)    Rejected

Section Policies

Editorial

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Research

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links