Peer Review Process

- The researcher should pay the full peer review fees once the article is submitted to the journal, and before being sent to reviewers.

- The scientific subject of the article and studies submitted for publication is subject to secret (blind) academic peer review by professors specialized in the field of the research according to the system followed in the journal.

- The responses of the reviewers received on the article determine whether it is to be accepted for publication or not as follows:

  • When the two reviewers approve the publication of the article, it is accordingly accepted for publication in the journal. 
  • When the two reviewers reject the publication of the article, it is accordingly not accepted for publication in the journal.
  • When one of the reviewers rejects the publication of the article, a third reviewer is chosen: in case of his approval, the article is accepted for publication; and in case of his refusal, the article is not accepted for publication.

Review Form

PART I. Reviewer & Research Data

Research Title

 

Reviewer Name

 

Affiliation

 

PART II: Criteria of Reviewing

Rankings (mark in bold; place N/A next to items that do not apply)

Evaluation Criteria

Poor

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent

1- Practical managerial significance and contribution to existing knowledge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
2- Appropriateness for this journal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
3- The title of the paper clearly reflect its contents

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
4- The abstract sufficiently informative

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

5- The introduction highlight gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
6- The introduction establish the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

7-The introduction state the research aim or raise the research questions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
8- Adequacy of literature review

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
9- Adequacy of background

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
10- Soundness and clarity of methodology

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
11- Adequacy of analysis of issues

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
12- Evidence supports conclusion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
13- Clarity of presentation and readability

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
14- Organization of research

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
15- The references are sufficient, appropriate, and up-to-date.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

PART III: Comments to the Author(s)

  • Strengths
  • Weaknesses
  • Suggestions to Author/s

Part IV: Recommendation to Editor

Editorial Decisions (mark in bold)

Editorial Status

Copy-Editing Status

a. Publishable now

a. Requires minor copy-editing

b. Minor revisions necessary

c. Major revisions necessary

b. Requires major copy-editing

d. Not publishable

 

Part V: Comments to the Editor

 

Please return the form to the journal editor/editorial assistant.