Guide for reviewers

The Journal of Management and Operations Research (JMOR) is committed to publishing high-quality research that advances theoretical and practical insights in management and operations research. The peer review process is central to maintaining the journal’s academic rigor, and we deeply value the expertise, diligence, and contributions of our reviewers.

This guide provides an overview of the responsibilities and expectations for reviewers, as well as practical advice to ensure a fair, constructive, and efficient review process.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

As a reviewer for JMOR, you play a pivotal role in upholding the quality and integrity of published research. Your responsibilities include:

• Objective Evaluation: Assess the manuscript’s originality, significance, methodology, clarity, and adherence to the journal’s aims and scope.
• Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, actionable, and constructive comments to authors to help improve their work, regardless of whether the manuscript is ultimately accepted.
• Timely Reviews: Complete the review within the agreed timeframe, typically 2–3 weeks. Notify the editorial team immediately if delays are unavoidable.
• Confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share or discuss the content with others unless explicitly authorized by the editor.
• Ethical Standards: Declare any conflicts of interest that may affect your ability to provide an impartial review. If you feel unqualified to assess the manuscript or have a conflict, inform the editor promptly.

Reviewing a Manuscript

Initial Assessment

Begin by evaluating whether the manuscript aligns with JMOR’s focus and meets basic quality standards:

• Is the research question clearly defined and significant?
• Does the manuscript make a novel contribution to the field?
• Are the findings relevant to management and operations research?

If the manuscript falls outside the journal’s scope or fails to meet minimum quality criteria, you may recommend rejection without detailed review, but provide a brief rationale to the editor.

Detailed Review

For manuscripts that merit further evaluation, focus on the following areas:

• Title and Abstract: Are they accurate, concise, and reflective of the manuscript’s content?
• Introduction: Does it clearly state the research problem, objectives, and relevance?
• Methodology: Are the methods appropriate, rigorous, and well-documented?
• Results: Are the findings clearly presented, with sufficient data to support the conclusions?
• Discussion and Conclusion: Do the authors effectively interpret their results, address limitations, and suggest implications or future directions?
• References: Are the citations relevant, up-to-date, and formatted correctly?

Writing the Review

Structure your feedback in a professional and respectful tone, including:

1. Summary: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, highlighting its main contributions.
2. Strengths: Identify the manuscript’s strengths and areas of excellence.
3. Areas for Improvement: Offer constructive suggestions to address weaknesses in methodology, analysis, or presentation.
4. Recommendation: Provide a clear recommendation (e.g., accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject) and justify your decision.

Ethical Considerations

Confidentiality

Manuscripts are confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or use the content for personal advantage.

Conflict of Interest

If you have a personal, professional, or financial connection to the authors or the research, inform the editor immediately and recuse yourself from the review.

Originality and Plagiarism

Report any concerns about potential plagiarism, duplication, or ethical misconduct to the editor.

Tips for Effective Reviews

• Be Specific: Avoid vague criticisms; provide concrete examples and detailed suggestions.
• Be Constructive: Frame feedback in a way that helps authors improve their work.
• Be Balanced: Acknowledge the manuscript’s strengths while addressing its weaknesses.
• Be Timely: Respect deadlines to avoid delays in the publication process.

Communication with the Editorial Team

If you encounter issues during the review process or require clarification, please contact the editorial office at jmor@mri-pub.com. The editorial team is here to support you and ensure the review process runs smoothly.

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

JMOR values the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their efforts through:

• Formal acknowledgment in the journal.
• Certificates of recognition upon request.
• Opportunities to participate in the editorial board or special issues.

Thank you for your dedication to the peer review process and for supporting the Journal of Management and Operations Research in achieving excellence in academic publishing. Together, we can advance knowledge and foster innovation in management and operations research.