Guidelines for Reviewers

Journal of Sustainable Business and Economic Policy (JSBEP)

These guidelines outline the ethical responsibilities, expectations, and procedural standards for reviewers contributing to the peer-review process of JSBEP. The journal adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to ensure transparency, fairness, and integrity throughout the evaluation process.

1. Role and Purpose of Peer Review

Reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the quality, credibility, and academic rigor of the journal. Their evaluations support the Editor-in-Chief in making informed decisions and assist authors in improving the clarity, robustness, and contribution of their manuscripts.

2. Reviewer Eligibility and Expertise

  • Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise, research background, and publication record.
  • A reviewer should accept an invitation only if the manuscript aligns with their area of competence.
  • If the reviewer feels unqualified or unable to provide a thorough review, they should decline promptly.

3. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts and supplementary materials must be treated as strictly confidential.
  • Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss the content with others without explicit permission from the editorial office.
  • Information gained during review cannot be used for personal research, academic advantage, or other purposes.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, including:

  • personal or professional relationships with the authors,
  • competing research interests,
  • financial or commercial connections,
  • situations that could bias the evaluation.

If such conflicts exist, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

5. Objectivity and Fairness

  • Reviews must be conducted objectively, without bias or discrimination.
  • Critiques should be constructive, evidence-based, and focused on the manuscript’s content, methodology, and contribution.
  • Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable.
  • Reviewers must avoid making unfounded assumptions about authors’ identities, backgrounds, or affiliations.

6. Quality and Constructiveness of Feedback

A high-quality review should:

  • provide clear and well-reasoned comments,
  • identify strengths and weaknesses,
  • evaluate methodological rigor and theoretical contribution,
  • highlight gaps, errors, or inconsistencies,
  • offer suggestions for improvement,
  • distinguish between essential revisions and optional recommendations.

Feedback should be written in a professional tone suitable for academic communication.

7. Timeliness

  • Reviewers are expected to complete the review within the timeframe specified in the invitation (usually 2–4 weeks).
  • If more time is needed, reviewers should notify the editorial office as soon as possible.
  • Delays compromise the efficiency of the editorial process.

8. Ethical Considerations (COPE Compliance)

Reviewers must adhere to COPE’s core principles, which include:

  • avoiding the use of privileged information for personal benefit,
  • reporting suspected ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication),
  • respecting the confidentiality of the double-blind review system,
  • providing impartial and transparent assessments.

Any suspected misconduct should be reported confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief.

9. Review Structure

Reviewers should provide:

  1. General assessment of the manuscript’s relevance and contribution.
  2. Detailed comments on methodology, analysis, theory, literature, and clarity.
  3. Specific recommendations for strengthening the manuscript.
  4. A final recommendation:
    • Accept
    • Minor revision
    • Major revision
    • Reject

The recommendation must be consistent with the detailed comments submitted to the journal.

10. Anonymity

JSBEP uses a double-blind peer-review process.

  • Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors.
  • Reviewers should ensure that their comments do not reveal their identity.

11. Declining a Review

Reviewers should decline an invitation if:

  • the manuscript is outside their expertise,
  • a conflict of interest exists,
  • they cannot meet the review deadline,
  • they previously reviewed the work for another journal or publisher.

12. Commitment to Academic Integrity

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers affirm their commitment to uphold research integrity, ethical scholarship, and the intellectual quality standards of JSBEP.