Becoming a Reviewer

Whether this is your first time reviewing or you are a seasoned professional, we explain why you should say "yes" the next time an editor asks you to review for IJECOMBA.

Reviewing establishes you as an expert in the fields of economics, management, business, or accounting—it's a great way to enhance your academic or professional reputation.

• You get the opportunity to read cutting-edge research before it has even been published.
• Reviewing offers an ideal opportunity to exercise your critical thinking skills in a private arena.
• You can return the favor—you are very likely a published author, which means others have found the time to review your papers; now you can repay the courtesy.
• Building a relationship with the IJECOMBA editorial team increases your chances of being invited to join an Editorial Advisory or Review Board.
• You could be recognized for your efforts; each year editors are asked to nominate outstanding reviewers and top reviewer awards.

You will receive an email inviting you to review for the journal with the option to accept or decline. Here are some things to think about before you make your decision...

1. Time Journal editors are looking for reviews that are thorough and specific. If you are unsure whether you have the capacity to deliver that level of quality, you can always recommend a colleague who has more free time. If you might like to review for the journal when you are less busy, don't forget to let the editor know.

2. Best Match The editor may not be familiar with the finer details of your work, so you are best placed to judge whether you have the expertise required in the specific discipline (e.g., econometrics, strategic management, or auditing).

3. Conflicts of Interest Fully disclose any potential conflict of interest; it won't necessarily eliminate you, but it will help the editorial team make an informed decision. Examples include:

• Working in the same department/institute as an author.
• Having co-written with an author in the past.
• Professional or financial connections to the research.

Now, you do respond to your review request. You can accept or decline your review request from your invite email.

Confidentiality and Ethics All invitations to review manuscripts should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers' "comments to the author."

Articles submitted to IJECOMBA for consideration and review should be treated as confidential. Sharing this material with another person or uploading it to an AI tool or Large Language Model (LLM) for assessment or evaluation would violate the author's confidentiality, as well as any proprietary and/or data privacy rights. This also applies to the peer review report itself if uploaded to an AI tool for copy-editing or writing purposes, as it may contain confidential or identifiable information.

There are additional concerns regarding the use of AI tools for peer review due to biases in the datasets of these models and the reliability of their ability to assess content, with the risk of generating false, flawed, or inaccurate results. As such, to maintain trust in the integrity of the published record, IJECOMBA does not permit the use of AI tools or LLMs to assist in the review, evaluation, or decision-making process of any part of an article. Peer reviewers are responsible for the reviews they provide and accountable for their accuracy, rigor, and validity, which cannot be replicated by a non-human AI. Any breach of the integrity or trust of the review process will be treated as peer review misconduct.

How to Review a Research Manuscript As a reviewer, while you are not primarily responsible for policing ethics, your knowledge and expertise often place you best to spot cases of fraud, plagiarism, or possible defamation/libel. If you have reason to suspect ethical misconduct—either deliberate or accidental—please let the editor know as soon as possible.

Evaluation Criteria Please evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

1. Originality Does the article say something new and interesting? Does it add to the body of knowledge in Economics, Management, Business, or Accounting? Is the research question important? How does the manuscript compare to the most highly-cited or downloaded papers in the field? If the research has been covered previously, forward any relevant references to the editor.

2. Title Does it clearly describe the article and include the most important keywords? (Consider how you search for research articles.) Does it demonstrate the significance of the research and make sense?

3. Structured Abstract Have all mandatory fields (Purpose, Design/methodology/approach, Findings, Research limitations/implications, Originality/value) been completed? Does the abstract accurately reflect the content of the article?

4. Introduction Does this describe what the author hoped to achieve and clearly articulate the research question? Has the author provided a summary of the current research literature to provide context? Is it clear how this is being challenged or built upon? Are there any important works that have been omitted?

5. Methodology Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected (e.g., survey, archival data, experiment)? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Does the article outline the procedures followed? If the methods are new (e.g., a new econometric model), are they explained in detail? Is there sufficient information available for you to replicate the research?

6. Statistics These should be checked carefully—errors are common in economic and accounting analyses. Are the statistical tests appropriate for the data?

7. Results This is where the author should explain their findings. Are results presented clearly? You should consider the merits and appropriateness of the author's analysis.

8. Conclusion/Discussion Are the claims in this section reasonable and supported by the results? Are the findings consistent with the author's expectations? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the author explain how the research has added to the body of knowledge?

9. Graphics and Tables Where these are included, please check the contents and, if possible, make suggestions for improvements. Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they presented consistently (e.g., in the same format throughout)?

10. Language Does poor use of English make it difficult to follow the author's argument? If this is the case, it's not up to you to edit the text. Mention the problem in your review report, and the editor may decide to refer the author to editing services.

11. Implications for Research and Practice Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice?

• In Practice: What's the economic, managerial, or commercial impact?
• In Teaching: Can this be used in the classroom?
• To Influence Public Policy: Are there policy implications for government or regulation?
• In Research: Does it contribute to the body of knowledge?
• For Society: Is it influencing public attitudes or affecting quality of life? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?

12. Quality of Communication Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, and acronyms?

Make Your Recommendation You will make an overall recommendation to the editor to complete your review, and they will take this into account when they make their decision. The recommendation criteria are:

• Accept
• Accept after minor revisions
• Review after major revisions
• Reject

Notes:

• Accept after minor revisions: This often requires the author to make relatively small adjustments to the paper, which don’t take much time. They might be related to author guideline requirements (e.g., a slight reduction in word count, formatting of references to APA 7th style), or a slight elaboration on the research findings.
• Review after major revisions: This often requires the author to make more significant improvements, the type which take weeks or even months. Authors may be asked to address flaws in the methodology, collect more data, conduct a more thorough statistical analysis, or even adjust the research question to ensure the paper contributes something truly original to the body of work.