Reviewer Guidelines

Before accepting an invitation to review, please consider the following:

1. Scope and Expertise. Is the manuscript within your area of expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers topics outside your field of knowledge, please notify the editor as soon as possible and, if appropriate, recommend an alternative reviewer.
2. Availability. Do you have sufficient time to review the manuscript? The review process should normally be completed within two weeks. If you agree to review but require additional time, please notify the editor as soon as possible.
3. Conflict of Interest. Are there any potential conflicts of interest? A conflict of interest does not necessarily disqualify you as a reviewer, but all potential conflicts should be disclosed to the editor before beginning the review. If you have questions regarding a possible conflict of interest, please contact the editorial office.

When reviewing the manuscript, please consider the following components:

1. Title. Does the title clearly and accurately represent the content of the manuscript?
2. Abstract. Does the abstract accurately reflect the main contents, objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions of the manuscript?
3. Introduction. Does the introduction clearly establish the context and significance of the research problem? Does it adequately summarize relevant previous research and clearly identify the research gap, objectives, hypotheses, questions, or expected contribution?

To assess the originality and suitability of the manuscript, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript contains substantial similarity or plagiarism. Manuscripts with a similarity level exceeding the journal's permitted threshold should be reported to the editor. Reviewers may consult appropriate academic databases and scholarly resources when assessing originality.

1. If similar research has previously been published, does the manuscript provide sufficient originality or additional contribution to justify publication?
2. Is the manuscript sufficiently current, substantial, relevant, and interesting for publication?
3. Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge?
4. Does the manuscript comply with the academic and publication standards of the journal?
5. Is the manuscript consistent with the aims and scope of the journal?

The methodology should be sufficiently clear, appropriate, rigorous, and reproducible.

1. Does the author accurately describe the procedures used to collect the data?
2. Is the theoretical framework or literature used appropriately to support the study?
3. Is the research design appropriate for answering the research questions?
4. Is sufficient methodological information provided to allow the research to be understood and, where applicable, replicated?
5. Are the research procedures clearly identified and explained?
6. If a new method is introduced, is it adequately explained and justified?
7. Is the sampling strategy appropriate and adequately justified?
8. Are the instruments, materials, and procedures adequately described?
9. Are the variables, measurements, and types of data clearly described?

The Results section should clearly present the findings of the research in a logical and coherent sequence. Reviewers should assess whether the appropriate analytical procedures have been applied and whether statistical tools, where relevant, have been used correctly. If a more appropriate analytical method could improve the study, reviewers should explain this clearly to the author.

Interpretation and theoretical implications should primarily be developed in the Discussion section rather than repeated unnecessarily in the Results section.

1. Do the results adequately support the claims and arguments presented by the authors?
2. Does the author compare the findings with relevant previous studies?
3. If the findings contradict previous theories or research, does the author adequately explain and justify the differences?
4. Does the conclusion accurately reflect the findings and provide meaningful implications for future research or practice?

Are the tables and figures necessary, accurate, clearly presented, and appropriately integrated with the text? Do they present information that is easy for readers to interpret and understand?

1. The manuscript should demonstrate a critical and systematic engagement with relevant literature in the field of study.
2. The manuscript should maintain a clear and coherent focus on the research topic.
3. The manuscript should be written in clear, accurate, and grammatically correct English.
4. The manuscript should be easy to understand and logically organized.
5. The manuscript should be engaging and appropriate for an academic readership.

1. Original Research. Original empirical research should present evidence that offers a meaningful contribution, new perspective, improved process, methodological advancement, or greater precision in the tools or approaches used.
2. Research, Policy, and Observational Analysis. The manuscript should clearly explain the relevance, feasibility, effectiveness, implications, and potential implementation of the research findings. Relevant areas may include marketing management, financial management, strategic management, operations management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control systems, management information systems, international business, business economics, business ethics and sustainability, and entrepreneurship.
3. Practice and Case Studies. Case-based manuscripts should clearly describe the context, challenges, lessons learned, practical implications, and potential future developments arising from the case.

1. First-Person Research and Interview-Based Articles
2. Book Reviews
3. Technology Insights and Product Reviews

1. All review reports submitted by reviewers are confidential.
2. If you wish to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please inform and obtain permission from the editor before doing so.
3. Reviewers must not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript under review.
4. Ethical Issues
   • Plagiarism: If you suspect that substantial portions of the manuscript have been plagiarized from other sources, please provide the editor with the relevant details and evidence.
   • Research Misconduct or Fraud: If you suspect that the research findings, data, or reported procedures may be invalid or unreliable, please inform the editor and explain the reasons for your concern.
   • Timeliness: Please complete and submit the review by the agreed deadline. Your recommendation will be considered by the editor when making the final editorial decision, and your honest, constructive feedback is highly appreciated.