Reviewer Guideline

Guidelines for Reviewers

The International Journal of Applied Research in Management, Economics and Accounting (IJMEA) appreciates the contribution of researchers and academics who participate in the peer-review process.

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, originality, and reliability of the research published by the journal.

IJMEA follows a double-blind peer-review process, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to provide an objective and constructive academic assessment of submitted manuscripts and to assist the Editor in making an informed editorial decision.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on their academic and scientific merits rather than on the authors' identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, or personal characteristics.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Editor.

2. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider whether:

  • The manuscript falls within their area of expertise;

  • They have sufficient time to complete the review responsibly;

  • They can provide an objective and independent assessment; and

  • They have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

Reviewers should decline the invitation if they believe that their relationship with the authors, institution, research, or subject matter could compromise their impartiality.

If a reviewer has only a minor or manageable conflict, this should be disclosed to the Editorial Office before accepting the assignment.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Keep the manuscript and all related information confidential;

  • Not share the manuscript with anyone without permission from the Editorial Office;

  • Not disclose the content of the manuscript to third parties;

  • Not use unpublished information for personal, professional, or competitive advantage; and

  • Not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.

The identities of reviewers must remain confidential in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer-review policy.

4. Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviews should be conducted objectively, fairly, and respectfully.

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on academic criteria and should avoid:

  • Personal criticism of authors;

  • Discriminatory or offensive language;

  • Unsupported accusations;

  • Irrelevant personal opinions;

  • Bias based on nationality, institution, gender, career stage, or other personal characteristics; and

  • Requests for citations that are unrelated to the manuscript or primarily intended to increase the reviewer's own citations.

Comments should focus on the quality, validity, clarity, originality, and contribution of the research.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to consider the following aspects:

Originality and Contribution

  • Is the research sufficiently original?

  • Does the manuscript provide a meaningful contribution to the field?

  • Are the research findings relevant to management, economics, accounting, business, finance, marketing, or related areas?

Research Objectives

  • Are the research objectives and questions clearly stated?

  • Is the research problem adequately explained?

  • Are the objectives consistent with the methodology and conclusions?

Literature Review

  • Is the relevant literature adequately reviewed?

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate an appropriate understanding of previous research?

  • Are important and relevant sources appropriately cited?

Methodology

  • Is the research methodology appropriate for the research objectives?

  • Are the methods sufficiently described?

  • Is the sampling or data-selection procedure appropriate?

  • Are analytical techniques appropriately applied?

Results and Analysis

  • Are the results clearly presented?

  • Is the analysis appropriate and logically supported?

  • Are tables, figures, and statistical results presented accurately?

  • Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?

Discussion and Conclusions

  • Does the discussion appropriately interpret the findings?

  • Are the conclusions consistent with the results?

  • Are limitations adequately acknowledged?

  • Are implications for research, practice, policy, or future studies appropriately discussed?

Presentation and References

  • Is the manuscript clearly organized and written?

  • Are tables and figures understandable and necessary?

  • Are references relevant and sufficiently comprehensive?

  • Are citations appropriately used and formatted?

6. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should inform the Editorial Office if they identify serious concerns relating to:

  • Plagiarism or substantial text similarity;

  • Duplicate or redundant publication;

  • Fabrication or falsification of data;

  • Manipulation or inappropriate presentation of results;

  • Questionable authorship or contributorship;

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • Ethical approval or informed-consent concerns;

  • Inappropriate use of confidential or personal data; or

  • Other potential breaches of research or publication ethics.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact third parties about suspected misconduct. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editorial Office.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Recent collaboration with one or more authors;

  • Personal or professional relationships with the authors;

  • Employment at the same institution;

  • Direct competition involving the research;

  • Financial interests;

  • Personal disputes; or

  • Any other circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality.

The Editorial Office may reassign the manuscript when a conflict could compromise the integrity of the review.

8. Comments to Authors

Reviewer comments should be:

  • Clear;

  • Constructive;

  • Specific;

  • Evidence-based;

  • Respectful; and

  • Directly relevant to the manuscript.

Where revisions are required, reviewers should explain the reasons for their recommendations and, where possible, provide practical suggestions for improvement.

Reviewers should distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the research and minor issues such as language, formatting, terminology, or presentation.

9. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the Editor when appropriate.

However, confidential comments should not contradict or substantially undermine the comments provided to the authors.

Serious ethical, methodological, or research-integrity concerns should be clearly communicated to the Editor.

10. Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by the reviewer's assessment.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor and is not determined solely by an individual reviewer's recommendation.

11. Revision and Re-Review

When a revised manuscript is returned for further evaluation, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive issues raised during the previous review.

Reviewers should avoid introducing entirely new requirements during a subsequent review unless those requirements are necessary to address newly identified academic, methodological, or ethical concerns.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts during the review process.

Reviewers should not upload manuscripts, unpublished data, confidential reviewer materials, or other non-public manuscript content to generative AI systems or other external tools when doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

AI-assisted tools may not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and recommendations of their review.

13. Reviewer Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within the timeframe agreed with the Editorial Office.

If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the requested period, they should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

Reviewers who are unable to complete an assignment should decline the invitation promptly so that another qualified reviewer can be invited.

The journal values careful and meaningful reviews over unnecessarily rapid recommendations.

14. Reviewer Anonymity

IJMEA operates a double-blind peer-review system.

Reviewers should therefore avoid including identifying information in their review comments or files that could reveal their identity to the authors.

Reviewers should also avoid communicating directly with authors about the manuscript unless explicitly authorized by the Editorial Office.

15. Reviewer Recognition

IJMEA recognizes the valuable contribution of peer reviewers to scholarly publishing.

Where appropriate, the journal may provide a reviewer acknowledgment or certificate for completed peer-review assignments, subject to confidentiality requirements.

Reviewer recognition does not affect editorial decisions or the confidentiality of the peer-review process.

16. Editorial Independence and Publication Fees

Peer review and editorial decisions are independent of publication fees.

There is no submission fee and no peer-review fee.

Reviewers must not request, negotiate, or discuss publication fees with authors.

The payment or non-payment of an APC must not influence the reviewer's academic assessment or recommendation.

17. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers must not:

  • Use unpublished manuscript information for personal or professional advantage;

  • Share confidential manuscript materials;

  • Contact authors to promote personal services or publications;

  • Request unnecessary citations to their own work;

  • Attempt to influence authors for personal benefit;

  • Delegate a review to another person without prior permission from the Editorial Office; or

  • Use discriminatory, threatening, insulting, or inappropriate language.

Any serious breach of reviewer confidentiality or ethical responsibilities may result in removal from the journal's reviewer database.

18. Final Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a review, reviewers should ensure that they have:

  • Evaluated the manuscript objectively and independently;

  • Considered originality and academic contribution;

  • Assessed the appropriateness of the methodology;

  • Evaluated the quality of analysis and interpretation;

  • Checked the consistency of conclusions with the evidence;

  • Identified significant ethical or research-integrity concerns;

  • Disclosed any relevant conflict of interest;

  • Maintained complete confidentiality;

  • Provided constructive and respectful comments;

  • Avoided unnecessary citation requests; and

  • Submitted a clear recommendation supported by the review.

19. Contact

Questions concerning peer review, reviewer assignments, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or research-integrity concerns should be directed to the IJMEA Editorial Office through the journal's official email address.

Commitment to Quality

IJMEA is grateful to all reviewers who contribute their time and expertise to the scholarly publishing process.

Through confidential, fair, independent, and rigorous double-blind peer review, the journal seeks to maintain high standards of academic quality and research integrity while supporting constructive scholarly communication.

International Journal of Applied Research in Management, Economics and Accounting (IJMEA)
ISSN: 3023-4964
Peer Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review
Access Model: Open Access