Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer comments

The International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management takes the review process very seriously. We encourage reviewers to provide as comprehensive and detailed comments to authors of manuscripts as possible. The goal of comments is to demonstrate the rationale behind the revision request or rejection for publication and offer suggestions for the future improvement of the research.

We expect that the review will start with a short summary of the overall assessment, and the main weaknesses and strengths of the manuscript. The assessment should cover the overall theoretical originality of the paper, its relevance to the journal audience, the methodological clarity and rigour, and thought-through presentation. The overview should be followed by detailed and constructive feedback including specific guidance on potential ways to address the comment. Through comments, reviewers can also seek the clarification of concepts, argumentation and methodological processes. We ask reviewers to be polite and respectful to authors by avoiding negative wording, vague statements and irrelevant or personal comments.

To help understand whether your comments meet the journal's expectations, please go through the checklist below:

Rigour: Please make sure that a paper reflects the rigorousness of theoretical justification, methodological procedures, analysis and conclusions. All arguments and assumptions throughout all the parts of a manuscript need to be thoroughly evaluated. If you do not feel confident about certain aspects of the research, such as the methodological approaches or choice of theory and constructs, please indicate your concerns in the email to the editorial team.

Detailed comments: The comments you provide to authors should be exhaustive enough to offer solutions to address weaknesses or explain the irrevocability of issues hindering the publication in the journal. Provide precise suggestions and avoid vagueness. All major concerns should be flagged in the first round of review. It is not appropriate to raise new comments about issues that existed in the initial version of the paper.

Polite writing style: Whilst offering a critical review, be sensitive to the authors’ effort put into producing the manuscript. Refrain from writing comments about the work that may be considered offensive or discouraging.

Impartiality: Be objective and provide comments that would not indicate personal gravitation towards particular theories or types of research inquiries. If any conflicts of interest may take place, which would bias the evaluation of the research, it is important for reviewers to communicate that to the editorial team.

Confidentiality: The journal follows a double-blind review process. Therefore, any indication of reviewers’ identity in comments is not allowed. Identity could be inferred from the suggestions of prior works or references to a particular paper persistent across all comments.

Review turnaround: Reviewers are typically given 30-45 days for returning their comments and recommendations. This review window enables the reviewers to dedicate sufficient time to provide comprehensive feedback. It also ensures a timely response for the authors to improve their manuscripts for resubmission to IJBSAM or an alternative journal if the paper is rejected.


Once the paper is reviewed and comments are provided, reviewers need to make a recommendation to the editor about publication. However, it is the editor’s responsibility to make the final decision. Recommendations should feed back to the comments provided and may represent one of the following options:

Accept. Changes are not required. The paper is exceptionally written, has a strong theoretical foundation and contribution and it is methodologically flawless. It is suitable for publication in its current state.

Minor revision. Minor revisions are typically required for papers with weaknesses concerning minor language and presentation issues and structure. In such cases, papers have strong implications for literature and practice and are methodologically sound. Authors might be required to introduce additions that would involve minor corrections, such as wording.

Major revision. The paper needs to be revised substantially, such as inclusion and rewriting of sections, improvement or the justification of methodological approaches, and stronger argumentation about the choice of theory. Although this recommendation indicates that the changes are doable and can significantly improve the quality of the manuscript, it is not a guarantee of the eventual acceptance of the paper for publication.  Sometimes, reviewers might need to give major revision even though the likelihood of publication is low, as the steps to resolve current concerns are not clear. Potential steps might require collecting additional data or running different types of analysis. In such cases, it is helpful to inform the editorial team about the risk of rejecting a paper if revisions are deemed not satisfactory.

Reject. Recommendation to reject should be given when the paper has low importance or is seriously flawed in terms of theory and methodology, which could invalidate the findings of the research. By providing such a recommendation, reviewers do not believe that any doable changes in the paper can improve the quality of the research or the importance of its implications.

Review after revision
To ensure efficiency in the review process, we expect the same reviewers to check manuscripts after revision. If revisions are made at a satisfactory level, a recommendation of acceptance and a rationale behind it should be sent to the editorial team. If further changes are required, the second round of comments needs to be in line with the same guidelines and principles of impartial and constructive evaluation as outlined above.