Before You Begin
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
- Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
- Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
- Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work (at least one hour). Before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
- Do you need to find out more about reviewing and the peer review process? If so, email the editor at email@example.com
Respond to the invitation as soon as you can even if it is declined. A delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you decline the invitation, it would be helpful to provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
IJBM includes a short form to help structure your feedback with the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author. Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to proceed with the article. Your responses to the following items are for the editor's eyes only. They will not be shared with the author.
Reviewers will provide an overall assessment of:
- the extent to which the manuscript marks a new and demonstratively significant advancement in research.
- how likely it is that the author(s) will be able to produce a suitable revision.
High priority should be given to manuscripts that mark a new and demonstratively significant advancement in research:
- focusing on under-researched aspects of the field;
- focusing on countries or contexts about which little is known;
- using under-utilized theories, new frameworks, discourses, and methodologies;
- joining theory and research.
Comments To Authors
Reviewers should provide detailed feedback and constructive recommendations for revision related to:
- Significance: Does the manuscript represent a new and demonstratively significant advancement in research?
- Review of Literature: Does the manuscript include a well-organized and analytical review of relevant literature? Does the manuscript use a clear and well-developed theoretical/conceptual framework?
- Research Design: Does the manuscript reflect the appropriate design and methodology? Does the manuscript reflect high-quality data and analysis? Does the conclusion highlight the relevance of the findings for policy and practice?
- Style: Is the manuscript clear, logical, and concise? Does the manuscript follow APA publication guidelines?
Your feedback will allow the author(s) to improve their manuscript. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name.
We ask reviewers to please follow the guidelines below when reviewing assigned manuscripts:
- Give specific comments and suggestions for each major section of the manuscript, including the Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, and Discussion, as well as comments on the usefulness of tables and figures. Providing detailed feedback about major areas of concern is essential to a high-quality review. You should explain and support your assessment of the manuscript's strengths and areas for improvement so that both editors and authors fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. When you sit down to write the Comments to Authors, familiarize yourself and reference the journal’s review criteria in the written feedback.
- Experiments including human subjects or animal data should properly be documented. The journal requires ethical approval by the author’s host organization (e.g., Institutional Research Board).
- According to COPE guidelines, reviewers must treat manuscripts they are asked to review as confidential documents. Since peer review is confidential, they must not share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. This applies both during and after the publication process.
- Any suggestion that the author includes citations to reviewers’ (or their associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing reviewers’ citation counts or enhancing the visibility of reviewers’ work (or that of their associates).
- We ask reviewers to not only form a judgment about the suitability of the manuscript for the journal but also evaluate the manuscript from their position as critical readers of the field’s published work. While such judgment is critical to maintaining quality, we further ask that reviews be instructive and generative in ways that also define quality in terms of inclusiveness, equity, and diversity of ideas and methods, scholars, and contexts from which they all come.
Confidential Comments To Editors
Reviewers are invited to make candid confidential comments to the Editors. Your comments are for the editor's eyes only. They will not be shared with the author. If you suspect plagiarism, or fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible. View the COPE guidelines for more information.
Due to the high volume of manuscripts the journal receives, it is important to be purposeful in selecting what manuscripts to advance in the review and publication process. The most common recommendations for manuscripts upon the first review are Decline Submission and Resubmit for Review (major revisions). Reviewers make one of the following recommendations along with a written report that explains their recommendation:
|Recommendation||Comments to Author|
|Decline Submission: You believe the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal.||Explain your reasoning why the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal.|
|Resubmit Elsewhere: You believe the manuscript has potential but would be more suitable for another journal in the Scholars Journal network.||Explain your reasoning why the manuscript is not the best fit for the journal and recommend alternative journals for the author(s) to consider.|
|Resubmit for Review (major revisions): You believe the manuscript has potential for publication but significant revisions are required before publication can be considered.||Explain the major revisions required with an explanation of why they are necessary.|
|Revisions Required (minor revisions): You believe the manuscript has potential for publication but specific revisions should be made before publication can be considered.||Explain specific edits that should be made for publication to be considered.|
|Accept Submission: You believe the manuscript should proceed to the next stage of the editorial process without any further edits.||Explain why you believe no edits are required to the manuscript.|
The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor ultimately decides whether to reject or move forward with the submission. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision.
After Your Review
Even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the study with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.
Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors, and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.