Guide for Appraisers

Peer raters are responsible for reviewing by reading and assessing manuscripts in their areas of expertise, then providing constructive suggestions and honest feedback to the authors of articles that have been submitted. Peer raters discuss the advantages and disadvantages of articles, provide input on how to improve the quality and strength of papers, and assess the relevance and authenticity of manuscripts.

Before starting the review, please note the following:

  1. Is this article in accordance with your area of expertise? If you receive a manuscript involving a topic beyond your expertise, notify the editor immediately and recommend an alternative appraiser.
  2. Do you have time to review this manuscript? The review process should be completed within two weeks. If you agree but it takes longer, let the editor know as soon as possible or suggest an alternative rater.
  3. Is there a potential conflict of interest? While conflicts of interest won't deter you as an appraiser, disclose all potential conflicts of interest to the editor before starting the review. If you have any doubts regarding a conflict of interest, please contact the editorial office.

Review Process When reviewing articles, consider the following:

  1. Title: Does the title clearly reflect the content of the article?
  2. Abstract: Does the abstract accurately reflect the content of the article?
  3. Introduction: Does the introduction detail the accuracy of the information presented by the author and clearly state the issue discussed? The introduction should summarize the relevant research context and describe relevant findings or previous research. The research should describe the experiments, hypotheses, and methods used.
  4. Article Content: To assess originality and suitability to the journal, is there an element of plagiarism of more than 30 % of the content of this paper? Use a tool like Scopus to search similar literature.

Review Questions:

  1. Is previous research by other authors still relevant for publication?
  2. Are articles new enough, in-depth, and interesting to read?
  3. Does the article contribute to knowledge?
  4. Does the article comply with journal standards, including scope and research methods?

Methods: Ensure research methods are described in detail and accurately. Review the following aspects:

  1. How is data collected accurately?
  2. Is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriate for research?
  3. Is the research design appropriate and relevant to the research question?
  4. Does the research introduce new methods described in detail?
  5. Is there enough information for the reader to repeat the research?
  6. Is the sampling procedure appropriate?
  7. Are the tools and materials used adequately described?
  8. Is the type of data logged described exactly?

Results: The author must explain the research findings clearly and logically. Review the analysis that has been done and consider whether the statistical tools used are appropriate. If you have any suggestions for better use of statistical tools, let the editor know.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  1. Are the claims in this section supported by clear and reasonable research results?
  2. Did the authors compare the results of the study with previous studies?
  3. Do the results contradict existing theories?
  4. Does the conclusion provide insight into recommended future research?

Tables and Figures: Make sure the tables and figures match the text and clearly present data that readers can understand.

Writing Style:

  1. The review should be critical, especially against systematic literature relevant to the field of study.
  2. The focus of the review should be on only one topic.
  3. Make sure all content is written in English with coherent grammar.
  4. The article should be easy to understand and interesting to the reader.

Things to Note:

  1. Consider unique perspectives relating to issues in different areas of management.
  2. Reviews should be focused on one specific topic.
  3. Make sure the entire exposure is written in English and has a coherent writing style.
  4. Make sure that the writing is easy to understand and interesting for the reader.

Originality Research:

  1. Original data and testing should offer new approaches in improving systems, processes, and tools.
  2. Observational research and analysis should provide clarification on the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation of research results in various areas of management.
  3. In case studies, articles should describe future challenges in different areas of management and provide a learnable understanding.


Make sure references involve a variety of sources, it can be through interviews, book reviews, and technology insights.

Final Review:

  1. Review results must be submitted confidentially.
  2. If you want to discuss the article with colleagues, let the editor know first.
  3. Do not contact the author directly.
  4. For ethical issues such as plagiarism or fraud, report in detail to the editor.
  5. The suggestions and feedback you provide will be an important consideration in the editor's final decision.

When composing comments, please indicate the comment section intended for editors only and the part that can be returned to the author. Don't hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or concerns you may encounter.