Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Roles and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the International Research E-Journal on Business and Economics (IREJBE). Reviewers are responsible for evaluating submitted manuscripts and supporting authors through constructive, ethical, and objective assessment.

Specifically, Peer Reviewers are expected to:

• Critically read and evaluate manuscripts within their field of expertise
• Provide constructive suggestions and honest, evidence-based feedback
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript
• Recommend ways to improve the quality, rigor, and clarity of the article
• Assess the relevance, originality, and academic contribution of the manuscript

Reviewer Responsibilities Prior to Accepting a Review

Before commencing the review process, Peer Reviewers should ensure the following:

• Confirm that the manuscript aligns with their areas of expertise
• Inform the Editor promptly if the manuscript falls outside their expertise
• Recommend alternative reviewers when appropriate
• Commit to completing the review within two (2) weeks
• Notify the Editor immediately if additional time is required; otherwise, suggest an alternative reviewer
• Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest prior to reviewing
• Disclosure does not automatically disqualify a reviewer, but transparency is mandatory

Review Process and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript based on the following components:

Title

• Does the title clearly and accurately reflect the content of the article?

Abstract

• Does the abstract succinctly summarize the purpose, methodology, key results, and conclusions?

Introduction

• Does the introduction clearly define the research problem and objectives?
• Is the background sufficient and logically developed?
• Does it demonstrate engagement with relevant prior research?
• Does it establish a clear rationale and contribution to the field?

Content and Originality

• Does the manuscript demonstrate originality and scholarly value?
• Is the manuscript suitable for publication in IREJBE?
• Does it contribute meaningfully to existing knowledge?
• Does it align with the aims and scope of the journal?
• Is there evidence of plagiarism exceeding acceptable thresholds (e.g., >25%)?
• Reviewers may recommend similarity checks using appropriate tools
• If similar studies exist, does the manuscript offer new insights or perspectives?

Methodology

Reviewers should assess the clarity, rigor, and appropriateness of the methodology:

• Is data collection clearly and accurately described?
• Are theoretical frameworks and references appropriately applied?
• Is the research design suitable to address the research questions or hypotheses?
• Is there sufficient detail to allow replication of the study?
• Are sampling methods appropriate and well explained?
• Are analytical tools and materials adequately described?
• Are measurements and data types clearly defined?
• Does the study introduce any novel methods, and are these clearly justified?

Results

• Are findings presented clearly and logically?
• Are appropriate analytical or statistical techniques used?
• Are results consistent with the methodology described?
• Interpretation should be reserved for the Discussion section

Discussion and Conclusion

• Are conclusions supported by the reported results?
• Does the discussion compare findings with prior research and theory?
• Are contradictions or limitations adequately addressed?
• Does the conclusion indicate implications and directions for future research?

Tables and Figures

• Are tables and figures relevant, clear, and properly labeled?
• Do they support the narrative without redundancy?
• Are they easy to interpret and well integrated into the text?

Writing Style and Presentation

• Is the manuscript written in clear, coherent, and grammatically correct English?
• Does the author demonstrate critical engagement with the literature?
• Is the article logically structured and easy to read?
• Does the manuscript provide value to readers and the academic community?

Subject Relevance

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is relevant to the aims and scope of the International Research E-Journal on Business and Economics (IREJBE). Submissions should demonstrate clear relevance to business, economics, management, and related social sciences, with an emphasis on contemporary regional and global issues.

Manuscripts may address, but are not limited to, the following subject areas:

• Business Administration and Management
• Economics and Applied Economics
• Creative Technology Management and Innovation
• Arts, Cultural, Music, and Entertainment Management
• Sport Management and Sport Technology
• Event and Festival Management
• Creative Entrepreneurship and Design Management
• Digital Transformation and Creative Industries
• Media, Cultural, and Entertainment Economics
• Technology-enabled Business Models and Strategies
• Social Sciences with clear relevance to business and economic contexts

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript:

• Clearly aligns with the journal’s disciplinary focus and objectives
• Offers theoretical, empirical, or applied contributions relevant to the journal’s readership
• Demonstrates interdisciplinary integration where appropriate, particularly across managerial, economic, and technological dimensions

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope or lack a clear connection to business, economics, or management-related disciplines should be identified and recommended for rejection or redirection.

Originality and Research Contribution

• Does the research offer new data, insights, or methodological approaches?
• Does it improve systems, processes, or analytical precision?
• Does it address future challenges in areas such as:
• Marketing, Finance, Strategy, Operations
• Human Resource Management
• International Business
• Business Ethics, Sustainability, and Entrepreneurship

Final Review and Confidentiality

• Reviewer reports are strictly confidential
• Reviewers must not communicate directly with authors
• Discussion with colleagues requires prior approval from the Editor
• Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief

Ethical Considerations

• Plagiarism: Any suspected plagiarism must be reported immediately
• Research Misconduct: If data or results appear unreliable or fraudulent, the Editor must be informed promptly

End Notes

• Reviewers must submit their completed reviews by the assigned deadline
• Comments intended for the Editor should be clearly separated from comments for the Author
• Feedback should be delivered with professionalism, fairness, and respect
• Any urgent concerns should be communicated to the Editorial Office immediately