Reviewer Guidelines

Involvement International Journal of Business (IIJB) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer-review process. Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the journal by providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and independently.

  • Assess the manuscript based on its academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field of business and related disciplines.

  • Provide constructive comments that can help authors improve their manuscripts.

  • Maintain the confidentiality of all information contained in the manuscript.

  • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

  • Notify the editor immediately if they are unable to complete the review on time.

  • Inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest before accepting or completing a review.

  • Alert the editor to any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of academic misconduct.

2. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript or any part of it with others without permission from the editor.

  • Discuss the manuscript or its content with third parties.

  • Use unpublished information, ideas, data, or findings obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

  • Upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished research materials to publicly accessible Generative AI systems or other third-party platforms.

The confidentiality of the peer-review process must be maintained before, during, and after the review.

3. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers should provide an impartial and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript.

Comments should focus on the manuscript's scholarly content and should not be influenced by:

  • The author's nationality, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, academic status, or personal background;

  • Personal relationships or disagreements with the author;

  • The author's reputation or institutional affiliation; or

  • Personal preferences unrelated to the academic quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should avoid hostile, discriminatory, defamatory, or unnecessarily offensive language.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity.

A reviewer should decline the invitation if:

  • They have a close personal or professional relationship with one of the authors;

  • They have recently collaborated with one of the authors;

  • They work at the same institution as an author where this may compromise impartiality;

  • They have a financial, professional, or personal interest in the manuscript's outcome;

  • They are directly competing with the authors in a related research area; or

  • Any other circumstance could reasonably affect their independent judgment.

When in doubt, reviewers should consult the editor before proceeding.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

A. Relevance and Scope

  • Does the manuscript fit the scope of Involvement International Journal of Business?

  • Is the research relevant to business, management, finance, marketing, entrepreneurship, economics, international business, or related disciplines?

B. Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript present an original contribution?

  • Does it provide meaningful theoretical, methodological, or practical insights?

  • Does it advance existing knowledge or understanding of the research topic?

C. Literature Review

  • Is the relevant literature adequately reviewed?

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate sufficient engagement with current and relevant scholarly sources?

  • Are important theories, concepts, and previous studies appropriately discussed?

D. Methodology

  • Are the research methods appropriate for the research questions?

  • Is the methodology clearly described?

  • Are the sampling procedures, data collection, analytical methods, and research instruments sufficiently explained?

  • Are the methods applied appropriately and rigorously?

E. Results and Analysis

  • Are the results presented clearly and logically?

  • Are the analyses appropriate and adequately supported?

  • Are the conclusions consistent with the findings?

  • Are tables, figures, and statistical analyses presented accurately where applicable?

F. Discussion and Implications

  • Does the discussion adequately interpret the findings?

  • Are the findings connected to previous research and relevant theories?

  • Does the manuscript clearly explain its theoretical and/or practical implications?

G. References

  • Are the references relevant and sufficiently comprehensive?

  • Are important and recent scholarly sources included where appropriate?

  • Are citations accurate and consistently presented?

  • Are there indications of inappropriate citation or excessive self-citation?

H. Presentation and Language

  • Is the manuscript logically structured and clearly written?

  • Is the academic language appropriate?

  • Are tables, figures, equations, and other supporting materials presented clearly?

6. Reviewer Comments

A good review should be constructive, specific, clear, and supported by academic reasoning.

Reviewers are encouraged to:

  • Begin with a brief overall assessment of the manuscript.

  • Identify the manuscript's strengths as well as weaknesses.

  • Clearly distinguish major concerns from minor corrections.

  • Provide specific recommendations for improvement.

  • Explain the academic basis for critical comments.

  • Avoid rewriting the manuscript on behalf of the authors.

  • Avoid comments that reveal the reviewer's identity in a way that compromises anonymous peer review.

Where possible, reviewers should provide page, section, paragraph, table, or figure references when identifying specific issues.

7. Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should provide a recommendation to the editor. The available recommendations may include:

Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor changes.

Minor Revision
The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited revisions that do not substantially affect the research design or core findings.

Major Revision
The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions to its methodology, theoretical framework, analysis, discussion, structure, or other major components.

Reject
The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, does not fit the journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution, or fails to meet the journal's academic and ethical standards.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editor and is not determined solely by an individual reviewer's recommendation.

8. Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor if they identify potential ethical concerns, including:

  • Plagiarism or substantial text similarity;

  • Duplicate or redundant publication;

  • Fabrication or falsification of data;

  • Manipulation or inappropriate presentation of research results;

  • Unethical research practices;

  • Suspicious or fabricated references;

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest; or

  • Other forms of academic misconduct.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor.

9. Use of Generative AI

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts under review.

Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential peer-review materials, research data, or other protected content into Generative AI systems where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment. The reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of the submitted review report.

If AI-assisted tools are used for limited purposes that do not compromise confidentiality, reviewers should comply with the journal's Generative AI Policies and any applicable instructions from the editor.

10. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the deadline provided by the editorial office.

If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editor as soon as possible. If a reviewer is unable to provide a review within a reasonable timeframe, they should decline the invitation promptly so that the editorial process is not unnecessarily delayed.

11. Reviewer Recognition

IIJB appreciates the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Where applicable and with appropriate consent, the journal may recognize reviewers through certificates, acknowledgement of reviewer contributions, or other appropriate forms of recognition.

12. Final Principle

The purpose of peer review is not merely to identify weaknesses but to help ensure that published research is original, rigorous, relevant, ethical, and valuable to the scholarly community.

Reviewers are therefore encouraged to approach every manuscript with professionalism, fairness, confidentiality, and respect for the authors and the scholarly process.

Involvement International Journal of Business (IIJB) thanks all reviewers for their valuable contribution to maintaining high standards of academic publishing.