Information for Reviewers

The peer review process serves as the vital cornerstone of scholarly publishing, relying on reviewers to act as independent experts who safeguard the validity and quality of research. Reviewers are expected to provide Constructive Feedback through objective, detailed, and honest evaluations that remain respectful and aim to help authors improve their work, regardless of the final decision. This role requires rigorous Technical Validation, where the reviewer assesses methodological rigor, statistical accuracy, and the logical consistency of the study's conclusions. Furthermore, Timeliness is essential; reviewers must complete their tasks within the agreed-upon timeframe or notify the Editor immediately if an extension is required. Reviewers also act as a defense against ethical lapses by assisting in the Detection of Malpractice, alerting the Editor to any suspicions of plagiarism, data fabrication, or redundant publication. Finally, they ensure Scope Alignment by determining if the manuscript offers a significant and original contribution to the fields of business and management.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must approach the peer review process as a strictly confidential interaction. Manuscripts are considered Privileged Information, meaning reviewers are prohibited from sharing, discussing, or disclosing any portion of the unpublished work with third parties. This commitment extends to Non-Appropriation, where reviewers must not use any data, arguments, or interpretations from the unpublished manuscript for their own personal or professional gain. To maintain the integrity of the process, reviewers are expected to perform the Destruction of Materials—deleting or destroying all digital and physical copies of the manuscript once the review is submitted. In our double-blind system, Identity Protection is paramount; reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors or initiate direct contact regarding the submission.

Conflict of Interest (COI)

Transparency regarding potential bias is essential to maintaining the trust of the scientific community. Reviewers must disclose any relationships that could be perceived as a conflict of interest and adhere to COI Ethical Guidelines. This includes recusing oneself due to Personal and Professional Ties, such as collaborative, mentoring, or competitive relationships with authors within the last 3–5 years. Institutional Conflict also applies; reviewers should generally avoid manuscripts from their own institution or one where they are seeking employment. Furthermore, any Financial Interests, such as stock ownership or consultancies related to the findings, must be disclosed. If a reviewer identifies a significant Intellectual Bias—where personal or ideological beliefs prevent an unbiased assessment—they must decline the invitation.

Code of Conduct for Reviewers

By accepting an invitation to review, the reviewer commits to the highest standards of professional behavior as outlined by COPE. This includes Impartiality, ensuring the review is based solely on scientific merit rather than the author’s race, gender, seniority, or institutional prestige. Reviewers must also demonstrate Honesty by only accepting assignments for which they possess the necessary subject-matter expertise. Throughout the process, clear and professional Communication is required, including prompt responses to editorial inquiries and maintaining a constructive tone in all correspondence to uphold the dignity of the scholarly exchange.