GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the profession as a whole, and should be encouraged. Scholars who submit manuscripts to JIBS are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review for the Journal.
Refusals to review a manuscript are from time to time necessary. For example, a reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript where there is a possible conflict of interest; please read the JIBS Code of Ethics, which provides conflict of interest guidelines for reviewers. JIBS has a double-blind review process; knowing the identity of an author or co-author would normally be grounds for refusal to review.
Reviewers should read the JIBS Statement of Editorial Policy before writing their review. In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the author(s), this Statement should be used as the foundation for judging the suitability of the manuscript for JIBS.
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal biases in their comments and judgments.
Reviewers should be polite (author friendly). Comments should be directed to the manuscript, not to the paper's author. The reviewer should be critical of the manuscript, and not of the author. Reviewers should find something supportive to say about the manuscript.
Reviewers should be sensitive to submissions from authors whose native language is not English since JIBS, by its nature, attracts submissions from scholars all over the world. Reviewers should not submit corrections for spelling and grammar mistakes, but should instead encourage authors of poorly worded manuscripts to seek professional editing assistance in rewriting the manuscript.
Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. It is important to recognize that the manuscript is confidential. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the Editor, nor any information from the manuscript without permission.
In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the author(s), reviewers should always keep in mind that their review captures their scholarly judgment about the manuscript. Reviewers should be honest with the author in terms of their concerns about the manuscript. Reviewers should explain and support their scholarly judgments adequately; that is, they should provide sufficient detail to the author to justify their recommendation to the Editor. Reviews should not be "two-faced", providing overly friendly reviews to the author but very negative reviews in private to the Editor.
Reviewers should provide developmental reviews. A developmental review:
- Is specific about the problems in the manuscript and makes suggestions as to how the problems might be addressed.
- Identifies the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the manuscript.
- Comments on the manuscript's overall contribution to the field.
- Determines whether there is a gem of an idea in the manuscript and suggests how that idea might be developed.
- Separates the reviewer's comments into "major" and "minor" points, which helps signpost to the author the most important criticisms.
Reviewers should be alert to missing citations to similar work, and draw those to the attention of the authors and the editor.
Reviewers should not provide an editorial opinion (accept, reject, revise) to the author. Reviewers often disagree; and, it is the Editor's responsibility to render an editorial decision. The reviewer's editorial opinion should be given only to the Editor in a separate communication.
Timeliness is important. Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the reviewer should contact the JIBS Managing Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new reviewer should be chosen.
More pages:
Information for contributors
JIBS Keyword list
JIBS Style Guide
JIBS Code of Ethics
