REVIEWER RESOURCES

IBEJ Reviewer Resources

Brief Guidelines for Reviews

Ideally, IBEJ reviews should:

  • Be 2-4 pages in length
  • Be focused on 6-8 major points
  • Have those points numbered in a rough order of importance
  • Have minor points, if covered, placed into a separate section, continuing the numbering from the major points portion.

Sample Reviews (Reviewer’s Narrative Review)

To illustrate the kinds of reviews our editorial team is looking for, please see the samples here.

Extended Guidelines for Reviews

Please follow these steps when reviewing for IBEJ:

  • Familiarize Yourself with the IBEJ
    • Read the Journal's Aims and Scope
    • Outline the Substance of Your Review:
      • Theoretical Contribution- Does the manuscript test, create, or extend theory? Does it change or advance knowledge of the concepts, relationships, models, or theories embedded in the relevant literatures? Does it cause scholars to think about some phenomenon in a way that would not be anticipated from extrapolations of existing work?
      • Interestingness, Innovativeness, & Novelty- Does the manuscript examine new constructs, phenomena, or relationships, or does it test its predictions in an unconventional, elegant, and unexpected way?
      • Empirical Contribution- Do the manuscript's findings add to the existing pool of knowledge in the relevant domains in an important and useful way?
      • Methodological Rigor- Was the study well executed? If the study is hypothetical-deductive, do its manipulations or measures possess construct validity, and do its findings possess adequate internal and statistical conclusion validity? If the study is inductive, are its data gathered, coded, and interpreted according to prevailing standards?
    • Write Your Review
      • Be Constructive- Don't just point out problems, also point out solutions. Reviewers should be like "lifeguards"--trying to save the current manuscript, or at least the next project in the stream of research.
      • Be Concise- Try not to cover the same ground in multiple comments; consolidate your coverage of a given theme in a single point.
      • Be Polite and Conversational- Be "author friendly" in your tone, and use terms like "you" instead of "the authors."
      • Identify Some Strengths- Open your review with what you liked, before focusing the bulk of your review on your criticisms and concerns.
      • Don't Be "Two-Faced"- Don't send a different message in your Comments to the Author than you do in your Comments to the Editor, or than you do on the Reviewer Evaluation Form. Doing so puts the action editor in the awkward position of rejecting a paper that--seemingly--has positive reviews.
      • Non-English Native Authors- You will sometimes be asked to review submissions from authors whose native language is not English. In those cases, distinguish between the quality of the writing and the quality of the ideas that the writing conveys. Those ideas may be good, even if they are not expressed well.
      • Be On Time- IBEJ prides itself on cycle time. It is important to return your review on time so that the action editor can guarantee the authors a quick turnaround. Also, average time taken to return reviews is a key factor in making decisions about the editorial review board (as is the percentage of review requests that are accepted rather than declined).
      • Best Reviewer Award
    • Best Reviewer Awards are given to IBEJ's reviewerswho provided constructive, benevolent, and punctual reviews during the previous year.
    • Read the Criteria of Best Reviewer Award.
      • Thank You!
      • Contributing reviews is a vital component of academic service, and the peer review process could not function without such contributions.
      • Thank you for agreeing to review for IBEJ, even if our review request caught you at a busy time. We are very grateful for your service.
      • As a small token of appreciation, we will provide reviewer certificate upon request.
      • You also have a chance to win the Best Reviewer Award.