For Reviewers

The Journal of Economics and Management Research (JEMR) sincerely appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers to the advancement of scholarly publishing. Peer review is fundamental to ensuring the quality, credibility, and integrity of published research.

JEMR relies on the expertise of qualified reviewers from diverse academic institutions and countries to provide fair, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

  • Why Review for JEMR?

By serving as a reviewer, you will:

  • Contribute to the advancement of knowledge in economics, management, finance, accounting, and related disciplines.
  • Support authors in improving the quality of their research.
  • Help maintain the scientific integrity of the journal.
  • Participate in an international scholarly community.
  • Enhance your professional and academic profile through editorial service.
  • Reviewer Qualifications

JEMR invites reviewers who:

  • Hold a doctoral degree or equivalent academic qualification.
  • Have demonstrated expertise through publications in relevant disciplines.
  • Possess knowledge of appropriate research methodologies.
  • Are committed to ethical and objective peer review.
  • Can complete reviews within the requested timeframe.

The Editorial Office may also invite experienced researchers with recognized expertise in specialized areas.

  • The Peer Review Process

JEMR operates a double-blind peer review system.

This means that:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
  • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers;
  • editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript.

The review process generally includes:

  1. Editorial screening.
  2. Assignment to independent reviewers.
  3. Reviewer evaluation.
  4. Editorial assessment of reviewer reports.
  5. Editorial decision.
  6. Author revision (if required).
  7. Final decision.
  • Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that they:

  • have appropriate expertise in the subject area;
  • can complete the review within the requested deadline;
  • have no conflicts of interest;
  • can provide an objective and independent evaluation.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, the invitation should be declined promptly so that another reviewer may be assigned.

  • Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly;
  • provide constructive and evidence-based comments;
  • identify strengths and weaknesses;
  • assess the originality and significance of the research;
  • recommend improvements where appropriate;
  • maintain confidentiality throughout the review process;
  • disclose any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism of the authors and focus exclusively on the scientific quality of the manuscript.

 

  • Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following:

Originality

  • Does the manuscript provide new knowledge or insights?
  • Does it make a meaningful contribution to the field?

Relevance

  • Is the topic consistent with the aims and scope of JEMR?
  • Will the research be of interest to the journal's readership?

Literature Review

  • Is the literature current and relevant?
  • Are important studies appropriately discussed?
  • Is the research gap clearly identified?

Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate?
  • Are methods adequately described?
  • Are statistical or econometric techniques correctly applied?
  • Is the methodology reproducible?

Results

  • Are the results clearly presented?
  • Do tables and figures support the findings?
  • Are analyses accurate and complete?

Discussion

  • Are findings interpreted appropriately?
  • Are comparisons made with previous research?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?

Conclusion

  • Are conclusions supported by the evidence?
  • Are policy, managerial, or theoretical implications clearly presented?

References

  • Are references relevant and up to date?
  • Are citations complete and consistent?
  • Are important studies omitted?
  • Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Recommendations should always be supported by clear and constructive comments.

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should adhere to the highest standards of publication ethics. Reviewers must:

  • maintain confidentiality;
  • evaluate manuscripts impartially;
  • avoid discrimination of any kind;
  • disclose conflicts of interest;
  • report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, or other ethical concerns;
  • respect the intellectual property of authors.
  • Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share manuscripts with others without editorial permission;
  • use unpublished information for personal research;
  • distribute manuscript files;
  • discuss the manuscript publicly.

All review materials must remain confidential before and after the review process.

  • Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline assignments if they have any conflict of interest, including:

  • recent collaboration with the authors;
  • employment at the same institution;
  • financial interests related to the research;
  • personal or professional relationships that may affect impartiality.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the review, the reviewer should immediately inform the Editorial Office.

  • Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality when using digital tools.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, or confidential review materials into publicly available AI systems.

If AI tools are used for limited editorial assistance (such as grammar checking), reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and independence of their evaluation.

AI systems must not generate reviewer reports or replace the reviewer's own scholarly judgment.

  • Timeliness

Reviewers play an essential role in ensuring efficient editorial processing.

If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

Timely reviews help authors receive prompt editorial decisions and improve the overall publication process.

  • Reviewer Recognition

JEMR values the voluntary contribution of reviewers.

Subject to journal policy, reviewers may receive:

  • certificates of reviewing;
  • annual acknowledgement on the journal website;
  • letters of appreciation;
  • recognition through reviewer profile services where applicable.

Reviewer confidentiality will always be respected.

  • Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers interested in joining the JEMR reviewer database are invited to submit:

  • a current curriculum vitae (CV);
  • institutional affiliation;
  • ORCID iD (recommended);
  • research interests and keywords;
  • a list of recent publications.

The Editorial Office will evaluate applications based on academic qualifications and expertise.

  • Contact the Editorial Office

For questions regarding the peer-review process or reviewer registration, please contact the JEMR Editorial Office using the contact information available on the journal website.

The Editorial Team appreciates the commitment, professionalism, and expertise of all reviewers who contribute to maintaining the quality and reputation of the Journal of Economics and Management Research.