|Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business Research|
Purpose of Peer Review
Thank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process.
Criteria for Selection of Referees
For your information the selection of referees is based on a number of criteria that include
a) some-one who is knowledgeable in the techniques of analysis that are being employed, even if they may not be aware of the context of specific area of research;
b) some-one is familiar with the topic area of the paper being reviewed;
c) some-one familiar with the wider academic literature and thus able to assess it from the viewpoint of a general reader of the journal, while not necessarily being an expert in the methodology employed;
d) some-one whose work is cited by the author;
e) some-one who has published on the same topic previously;
The journal uses a minimum of 2 referees, and thus in a number of cases we do not expect referees to exactly replicate each other - but across all two referees the required criteria will be met. In addition, the journal will often use people with technical expertise from the fields of marketing, economics, human resource management, psychology, marketing etc as a check to ensure that referees who work primarily in the field of tourism are employing criteria consistent with those employed in other areas of academic work. For your information, we often find little difference in the comments made by these referees.
We thank you for you help - and hope this explains, at least in part, our thinking.
On Being Asked to Review
Does the article you are being asked to review truly match your expertise?p align="justify">The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.
Do you have time to review the paper?
Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to review can vary greatly between disciplines and of course on article type, but on average, an article will take about 5 hours to review properly.
Conducting the Review
You should not attempt to contact the author. Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor. Depending upon the journal, you will be asked to evaluate the article on a number of criteria. Some journals provide detailed guidance others do not, but normally you would be expected to evaluate the article according to the following:
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in?
Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements (where relevant) present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:
Title: .Does it clearly describe the article?
Abstract: .Does it reflect the content of the article?
Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended.
Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however.
Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
Communicating Your Report to the Editor
Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to complete “ONLINE EVALUATION FORM”.
If you accept this invitation, a link will be provided you to fill Online Evaluation Form.
When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article.
a) Reject (explain reason in report)
b) Accept without revision
c) Revise (either major or minor)
Last, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.