Guide for reviewers

The Journal of Business and Organizational Leadership (JBOL) is committed to publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed research that advances our understanding of business management, organizational behavior, leadership practices, and related fields. As a reviewer for JBOL, you play a vital role in maintaining the academic rigor of the journal, ensuring that only the best and most impactful research is published.

This guide is intended to outline the expectations and responsibilities of reviewers, provide tips on how to conduct reviews, and ensure consistency in the peer review process.

 

Role of a Reviewer

As a reviewer, you are responsible for evaluating the quality, originality, relevance, and clarity of the manuscript. Your feedback helps authors improve their work and ensures that the journal maintains its reputation for publishing high-quality research. The key tasks involved in the review process include:

• Assessing the Quality of Research: Evaluate whether the research is original, relevant, and contributes meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge in business and organizational leadership.
• Evaluating Methodology: Ensure that the research methodology is sound, appropriate for the study, and transparently reported. Reviewers should assess whether the data collection methods, analysis, and interpretation are valid.
• Providing Constructive Feedback: Offer specific suggestions for improving the manuscript, including recommendations for clearer writing, additional references, and further clarification of key points. Reviewers should aim to be constructive and supportive, helping the authors improve their work while maintaining academic integrity.
• Ensuring Ethical Standards: Verify that the study adheres to ethical guidelines, particularly in the use of human subjects, confidentiality, and transparency of funding sources.

 

Key Areas to Review

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following key areas:

1. Relevance and Originality: Does the manuscript address a significant issue in the fields of business and organizational leadership? Is the research original and does it offer new insights into existing theories or practices?
2. Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript clearly written, well-organized, and easy to follow? Check if the structure of the paper (introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion) is logical and coherent.
3. Literature Review: Does the manuscript provide an adequate review of the existing literature? Are the citations current and relevant? Does the paper effectively build on existing research?
4. Methodology: Is the research methodology appropriate for the study’s objectives? Is the methodology explained in sufficient detail for the study to be replicable? Are the results analyzed and presented accurately?
5. Contribution to Knowledge: Does the manuscript offer valuable insights to both academic researchers and practitioners in the field of business and leadership? How significant are the findings to the development of theory or practice?
6. Ethical Considerations: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical standards, including proper citation, approval for research involving human participants, and transparency of conflicts of interest or funding?
7. Writing and Presentation: Are there issues with grammar, spelling, or formatting? Is the manuscript well-structured and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines?

 

Review Process

1. Confidentiality: All manuscripts and review discussions are confidential. Do not share or discuss any aspect of the manuscript with others, including colleagues or peers, unless explicitly authorized by the journal.
2. Conflict of Interest: Please inform the editorial team immediately if you have any conflict of interest with the authors or the subject matter of the manuscript. This includes professional or personal relationships that may affect your impartiality.
3. Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the assigned time frame, typically within 3-4 weeks of receiving the manuscript. If you are unable to meet the deadline, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed.
4. Decision Making: After reviewing the manuscript, you will provide a recommendation for the editor’s consideration. The possible decisions are:

           - Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no further revisions.

           - Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted for publication.

           - Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.

           - Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is not suitable for publication.

 

Providing Feedback

Your feedback should be detailed, specific, and constructive. Below are some tips for providing effective feedback:

• Be Constructive: Aim to provide suggestions that help authors improve their work. Rather than simply pointing out problems, offer possible solutions.
• Be Respectful: Reviewers should communicate their opinions respectfully. Constructive criticism is valuable, but negative feedback should be framed in a way that helps the author make improvements.
• Be Clear and Specific: Provide clear examples to back up your comments. If a manuscript is unclear, provide specific suggestions on how to improve the writing or clarify the concepts.
• Focus on the Manuscript: Keep your feedback focused on the manuscript itself, rather than on the author(s). Your role is to assess the work and not the person behind it.

 

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain objectivity and fairness when assessing manuscripts.
• Avoid bias, including personal or professional conflicts of interest.
• Respect the intellectual property of authors by not using their ideas or data for personal gain before the manuscript is published.
• Inform the editorial team if they suspect unethical behavior, such as plagiarism or falsification of data.