Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal Ilmiah Ekonomi Bisnis (EKBIS) · p-ISSN 0853-862X | e-ISSN 2089-8002

These guidelines help reviewers assess manuscripts in an objective, systematic, and constructive way, in line with the standards of reputable scholarly publishing. Reviewers play a key role in maintaining the academic quality, scientific integrity, and reputation of the journal. These guidelines complement the EKBIS Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics, and AI Tools Policy.

1. The Review Process at EKBIS

• EKBIS uses single-blind review: reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors.
• Every manuscript that passes initial screening is reviewed by two reviewers. The editor's initial screening already covers fit with the scope, compliance with the template, and a similarity check with Turnitin (maximum 22%).
• Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC).
• The entire review process, including the submission of reports and all communication, takes place in OJS.

2. Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

1. Assess manuscripts professionally, objectively, and independently.
2. Provide constructive scientific feedback based on academic arguments.
3. Keep the manuscript under review confidential.
4. Complete the review within the deadline (see section 8).
5. Inform the editor of any conflict of interest.

3. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers must:

• Not use any information from the manuscript for personal benefit.
• Not contact the authors directly. All communication goes through the editor and OJS.
• Avoid personal, institutional, ideological, or methodological bias.
• Not ask the authors to cite the reviewer's own work unless it is genuinely relevant to the manuscript.
• Decline the review invitation if:
  • the topic is outside their expertise;
  • they have a conflict of interest, for example belonging to the same institution as an author, having collaborated with an author in the last three years, or having a personal relationship with an author;
  • they cannot meet the deadline.

4. Confidentiality and Use of AI

• Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or quote their content.
• Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools.
• The scientific assessment must be carried out by the reviewers themselves. Generative AI must not be used to write or replace the substance of the review report. AI may be used only to improve the language of a report the reviewer has written, without entering any content from the manuscript.
• Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reports. Full provisions are given in section 3 of the AI Tools Policy.

5. Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the following aspects. These criteria are aligned with the EKBIS Author Guidelines.

a. Originality and Contribution

• The novelty of the ideas, and whether the research gap is stated explicitly and supported by recent literature.
• The contribution to knowledge and practice.
• The fit with the scope of EKBIS (management, economics, and accounting).

b. Scientific Quality

• Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
• Appropriateness of the theoretical framework and the development of hypotheses or the conceptual framework.
• Suitability of the methodology for the research objectives, including the design, sample, instruments, and analysis techniques. The method must be described in enough detail to be replicated. Studies using primary data must include a variable operationalization table.
• Validity of the data and analysis, including validity and reliability tests.
• Strength of the arguments in the discussion: whether the results are compared with theory and previous studies.
• Whether the conclusion answers the objectives, is supported by the data, and includes theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.
• For systematic literature reviews: a clear and reproducible review protocol (databases, search strings, inclusion and exclusion criteria, PRISMA flow diagram), and a genuine synthesis of findings rather than a summary.

c. Structure and Presentation

• Organization of the manuscript in line with the Author Guidelines.
• Clarity of the academic English.
• Consistency of terminology.
• Quality, clarity, and relevance of tables and figures.
• Whether the title and abstract (maximum 200 words) reflect the content of the manuscript.

d. References

• Relevance of the sources to the topic.
• Currency of the literature: at least 20 references, with at least 80% journal articles and 80% published within the last 5–7 years.
• Compliance with the APA 7th edition citation style.
• No excessive self-citation or citation of any particular journal.

e. Research Ethics

• Studies using primary data from human participants include an ethics statement (how consent was obtained).
• The required declarations are present, including the declaration of generative AI use.

6. Recommendation

Reviewers are asked to give one of the following recommendations, in line with the categories in the Peer Review Policy:

1. Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without changes or with only minor technical corrections.
2. Minor revision: the manuscript is suitable for publication after limited revisions that do not change its substance.
3. Major revision: the manuscript requires substantial revisions (methods, analysis, or discussion) and needs to be reviewed again.
4. Reject: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in EKBIS.

Every recommendation must be supported by clear academic reasons.

7. Structure of the Review Report

The review report has two parts:

a. Comments to the Editor (confidential)

• A strategic assessment and the recommended decision, with reasons.
• Any suspected ethical issues (see section 9).

b. Comments to the Authors

• A summary of the assessment.
• The strengths of the manuscript.
• The weaknesses of the manuscript.
• Detailed, numbered suggestions for improvement that refer to the relevant section or page, so that the authors can respond to each one in their response table.

Comments to the authors should be courteous and focused on the content of the manuscript. The recommended decision should not be stated in the comments to the authors, because the final decision is made by the EIC.

8. Review Timeline

• Reviewers are expected to respond to the review invitation (accept or decline) within 7 days.
• The review should be completed within 3–4 weeks of accepting the invitation, in line with the Peer Review Policy.
• Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline should inform the editor as soon as possible.
• Re-review of revised manuscripts: reviewers check whether every comment has been addressed in the authors' response table and whether the changes to the manuscript are adequate.

9. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers should report to the editor, in the confidential comments to the editor, any indication of:

• plagiarism, including disguised plagiarism using paraphrasing or AI tools;
• duplicate publication;
• fabrication or manipulation of data;
• undisclosed use of generative AI;
• citation manipulation;
• breaches of research ethics, such as the absence of participant consent.

Reviewers should not make accusations in the comments to the authors. Suspected misconduct is handled by the editor according to section 10 of the Publication Ethics and the Plagiarism Policy.

10. Principles of Professional Assessment

Reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of:

• objectivity;
• academic transparency;
• scientific integrity;
• fairness.

Closing

The participation of reviewers is an important contribution to maintaining the quality of scholarly publishing. The editorial board thanks all reviewers for their dedication and professionalism in supporting the quality of the journal.