Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is fundamental to ensuring the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of the Review of Management Studies (RMS). This guide outlines the ethical responsibilities, expectations, and procedures for reviewers engaged in the journal’s double-blind peer review system.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to:

  • Upholding high academic standards in management and organisational research
  • Enhancing the clarity, methodological rigor, and theoretical contribution of manuscripts
  • Supporting fair, objective, and timely editorial decisions
  • Providing constructive feedback to improve the quality of submitted work

Reviews should aim to strengthen manuscripts, regardless of the final editorial decision.

2. Review Model

RMS operates a double-blind peer review system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
  • All manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential

3. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if:

  • The manuscript falls within their area of expertise (e.g., strategy, HRM, marketing, operations, governance)
  • They can complete the review within the requested timeframe (usually 2–3 weeks)
  • No conflict of interest exists

Conflicts of interest include:

  • Recent collaboration with the author(s)
  • Institutional affiliation with the author(s)
  • Personal, financial, or professional relationships affecting impartiality

If any conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts as strictly confidential documents
  • Not share, discuss, or distribute manuscript content
  • Not use manuscript content for personal or academic advantage
  • Not upload manuscripts to AI tools or external platforms
  • Delete manuscript files after completing the review

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, fair, and unbiased evaluations
  • Avoid personal, offensive, or discriminatory comments
  • Identify potential ethical issues such as plagiarism or data manipulation
  • Inform the editor of any suspected misconduct

6. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must NOT:

  • Upload manuscripts to AI tools or external systems
  • Use AI-generated content to write review reports

Reviewers MAY:

  • Use personal expertise and academic judgement
  • Use citation tools for reference checking (without uploading manuscript content)

All review reports must be fully human-generated.

7. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

7.1 Relevance and Scope

  • Is the manuscript aligned with management studies and RMS scope?
  • Does it contribute to management theory or practice?

7.2 Originality and Contribution

  • Does the study provide new theoretical or practical insights?
  • Are managerial or policy implications clearly stated?

7.3 Literature and Theory

  • Is the literature review current and comprehensive?
  • Is the theoretical framework appropriate and well-developed?

7.4 Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate and clearly explained?
  • Are data collection and analysis methods rigorous and transparent?
  • Can the study be replicated or verified?

7.5 Results and Discussion

  • Are findings clearly presented and logically interpreted?
  • Do results connect meaningfully with theory and practice?

7.6 Conclusions and Implications

  • Are conclusions supported by evidence?
  • Are managerial and practical implications meaningful?

7.7 Presentation and Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well-organised and clearly written?
  • Are tables, figures, and visuals appropriate and relevant?

8. Structure of the Review Report

A. Summary

Brief overview of the manuscript and its contribution

B. Major Comments

Substantive issues related to theory, methods, analysis, or contribution

C. Minor Comments

Suggestions on clarity, structure, language, and formatting

All comments should be specific, constructive, and actionable.

9. Recommendation Options

Reviewers should select one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Recommendations must align with written comments.

10. Tone and Professionalism

Reviews must be:

  • Constructive and respectful
  • Objective and evidence-based
  • Focused on the manuscript, not the authors
  • Supportive in guiding improvements, even when recommending rejection

11. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)
  • Inform the editor promptly if delays occur

Timely reviews are essential for maintaining editorial efficiency and author satisfaction.

12. Post-Review Conduct

After submitting a review, reviewers must:

  • Not contact authors directly
  • Not disclose manuscript content publicly
  • Maintain confidentiality indefinitely

13. Recognition of Reviewers

RMS acknowledges reviewer contributions through:

  • Annual reviewer acknowledgment lists (with consent)
  • Reviewer certificates upon request
  • Consideration for editorial or guest editor roles based on performance

14. Compliance with Standards

Reviewers must comply with:

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
  • RMS editorial and ethical policies

Non-compliance may result in removal from the reviewer database.