Reviewer’s guidelines
Guidelines for Choosing Reviewers at the Jordan Journal of Business Administration
- Expertise and Experience:
- Reviewers should have a strong background in the subject area of the manuscript.
- They should possess a Ph.D. or equivalent experience in the relevant field.
- Reviewers should have a track record of publications in peer-reviewed journals.
- Diversity and Inclusion:
- We aim to select reviewers from diverse geographical locations, institutions, and demographic backgrounds.
- We aim to include early-career researchers alongside established experts to provide a balanced perspective.
- Conflict of Interest:
- We ensure that potential reviewers do not have any conflict of interest with the authors, such as recent collaborations, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships.
- Availability and Reliability:
- Reviewers should have the time and are willing to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe.
- We check the reviewers’ previous performance and reliability in providing timely and thorough reviews.
- Reputation and Ethical Standards:
- We choose reviewers who have a reputation for integrity and adhere to high ethical standards.
- Reviewers should have a history of providing constructive and respectful feedback.
- Professional Membership:
- Preferably, reviewers should be members of professional societies relevant to the manuscript’s topic.
- We will consider reviewers who are active participants in academic conferences and workshops.
Guidelines for Reviewers
- Review Objectives:
- Provide an objective, fair, and constructive critique of the manuscript.
- Assess the novelty, significance, and rigor of the research.
- Offer suggestions for improving the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and quality.
- Confidentiality:
- Treat the manuscript and review process as confidential.
- Do not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.
- Conflict of Interest:
- Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review assignment.
- Recuse yourself if you feel unable to provide an unbiased review.
- Timeliness:
- Complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
- Communicate promptly with the editor if you anticipate any delays.
- Structure of the Review:
- Summary: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript’s key points and contributions.
- Major Comments: Identify significant issues with the manuscript’s content, methodology, or conclusions.
- Minor Comments: Note smaller issues such as typographical errors, formatting issues, and minor points of clarification.
- Recommendation: Provide a clear recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject) with justification.
- Constructive Feedback:
- Offer specific, actionable suggestions to help authors improve their manuscript.
- Be respectful and professional in your language and tone.
- Ethical Considerations:
- Ensure that the research adheres to ethical standards, including use of appropriate data and citation practices.
- Report any suspected ethical issues, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, to the editor.
- Anonymity:
- Maintain your anonymity if the review process is double-blind.
- Avoid revealing your identity in the comments to the authors.
- Quality Assurance:
- Verify the accuracy and validity of the data and methods used in the study.
- Check for logical consistency and coherence in the manuscript’s arguments and conclusions.
